LAFCO
Countywide Water Service Review
Read the report at Santa Clara County Water Districts ↗
(cid:70)(cid:105)(cid:110)(cid:97)(cid:108)(cid:32)(cid:82)(cid:101)(cid:112)(cid:111)(cid:114)(cid:116)
(cid:67)(cid:67)(cid:111)(cid:111)(cid:117)(cid:117)(cid:110)(cid:110)(cid:116)(cid:116)(cid:121)(cid:121)(cid:119)(cid:119)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:100)(cid:100)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:32)(cid:32)(cid:87)(cid:87)(cid:97)(cid:97)(cid:116)(cid:116)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:114)(cid:114)(cid:32)(cid:32)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:114)(cid:114)(cid:118)(cid:118)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:99)(cid:99)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:32)(cid:32)(cid:82)(cid:82)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:118)(cid:118)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:119)(cid:119)
(cid:74) (cid:85) (cid:78) (cid:69)(cid:32) (cid:50) (cid:48) (cid:48) (cid:53)
(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:80)(cid:65)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:68)(cid:32)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:58)
(cid:76)(cid:111)(cid:99)(cid:97)(cid:108)(cid:32)(cid:65)(cid:103)(cid:101)(cid:110)(cid:99)(cid:121)(cid:32)(cid:70)(cid:111)(cid:114)(cid:109)(cid:97)(cid:116)(cid:105)(cid:111)(cid:110)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:111)(cid:109)(cid:109)(cid:105)(cid:115)(cid:115)(cid:105)(cid:111)(cid:110)
(cid:111)(cid:102)(cid:32)(cid:83)(cid:97)(cid:110)(cid:116)(cid:97)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:108)(cid:97)(cid:114)(cid:97)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:111)(cid:117)(cid:110)(cid:116)(cid:121)
(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:80)(cid:65)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:68)(cid:32)(cid:66)(cid:89)(cid:58)
(cid:68)(cid:117)(cid:100)(cid:101)(cid:107)(cid:32)(cid:38)(cid:32)(cid:65)(cid:115)(cid:115)(cid:111)(cid:99)(cid:105)(cid:97)(cid:116)(cid:101)(cid:115)(cid:44)(cid:32)(cid:73)(cid:110)(cid:99)(cid:46)
(cid:54)(cid:48)(cid:53)(cid:32)(cid:84)(cid:104)(cid:105)(cid:114)(cid:100)(cid:32)(cid:83)(cid:116)(cid:114)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:116)
(cid:69)(cid:110)(cid:99)(cid:105)(cid:110)(cid:105)(cid:116)(cid:97)(cid:115)(cid:44)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:97)(cid:108)(cid:105)(cid:102)(cid:111)(cid:114)(cid:110)(cid:105)(cid:97)(cid:32)(cid:57)(cid:50)(cid:48)(cid:50)(cid:52) (cid:67)(cid:101)(cid:108)(cid:101)(cid:98)(cid:114)(cid:97)(cid:116)(cid:105)(cid:110)(cid:103)(cid:32)(cid:50)(cid:53)(cid:32)(cid:89)(cid:101)(cid:97)(cid:114)(cid:115)(cid:32)(cid:111)(cid:102)(cid:32)(cid:83)(cid:101)(cid:114)(cid:118)(cid:105)(cid:99)(cid:101)
FINAL REPORT
COUNTYWIDE WATER SERVICE REVIEW
Prepared for:
Local Agency Formation Commission
of
Santa Clara County
70 West Hedding Street, 11th Floor
San Jose, California 95110
Prepared by:
Dudek and Associates, Inc.
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
June 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
11.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................1
A. Overview..............................................................................................................................................1
B. Service Review Purpose......................................................................................................................3
C. Water Service Review Process............................................................................................................4
D. Water Supply System...........................................................................................................................4
E. Issues and Trends................................................................................................................................8
F. Report Structure.................................................................................................................................11
22.. SPECIAL DISTRICTS......................................................................................................................................12
A. Santa Clara Valley Water District.......................................................................................................13
B. Aldercroft Heights County Water District............................................................................................36
C. Purissima Hills County Water District.................................................................................................43
D. San Martin County Water District.......................................................................................................53
E. Pacheco Pass Water District..............................................................................................................68
F. Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District...........................................................................71
G. Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District.....................................................................................83
33.. CITY WATER AGENCIES...............................................................................................................................93
A. City of GIlroy......................................................................................................................................94
B. City of Milpitas..................................................................................................................................105
C. City of Morgan Hill............................................................................................................................114
D. City of Mountain View......................................................................................................................124
E. City of Palo Alto...............................................................................................................................132
F. San Jose Municipal Water System..................................................................................................143
G. City of Santa Clara...........................................................................................................................154
H. City of Sunnyvale.............................................................................................................................164
44.. PRIVATE WATER PURVEYORS..................................................................................................................174
A. California Water service Company...................................................................................................175
B. Great Oaks Water Company............................................................................................................178
C. San Jose Water Company...............................................................................................................180
D. Stanford University...........................................................................................................................185
E. West San Martin Water works, Inc...................................................................................................193
55.. RELATED AGENCIES...................................................................................................................................197
A. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission......................................................................................198
B. Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency..........................................................................201
66.. GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................................................204
77.. APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................206
A. Water System Regulations for Santa Clara County.........................................................................207
B. Recycled Water................................................................................................................................212
C. Agency Profiles................................................................................................................................214
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report i
ACRONYMS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AF Acre foot
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
Cal Water California Water Service Company
CCF Hundred cubic feet
CIP Capital Improvements Plan (or Program)
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CVP Central Valley Project (Federal)
DHS State Department of Health Services
ERAF Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
FTE Full Time Equivalents (full time staff)
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD Gallons per capita per day
GPM Gallons per minute
IWRP Integrated Water Resources Plan
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
MGD Million gallons per day
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NA Not Applicable
NP Not Provided
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (under the US Department of Agriculture)
RCD Resource Conservation District
SBWR South Bay Water Recycling
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SJWC San Jose Water Company
SOI Sphere of Influence
SWP State Water Project
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
USA Urban Service Area
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
Cover Photos:
Upper Lower Reach of Guadalupe Creek Uvas Reservoir, courtesy of the Santa Clara Valley
Photo L. Johmann © 2000 (Guadalupe-Coyote RCD) Water District
Guadalupe Creek, courtesy of the Santa Clara Valley Lower Coyote Creek (Downstream of Hwy 101)
Water District Photo L. Johmann © 2004 (Guadalupe-Coyote RCD)
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report ii
11.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
Service Review Purpose
Water Service Review Process
Issues and Trends
Report Structure
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report
Executive Summary
A. OVERVIEW
The Countywide Water Service Review is a comprehensive overview of water service within Santa Clara
County and includes all of the public agencies providing water service in the County as well as several
private purveyors. In addition, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the Bay Area
Water Supply and Conservation Agency are included since the water imported through the SFPUC’s
Hetch Hetchy Water System is an integral component of the water supply in Santa Clara County. The
Pacheco Pass Water District is included as well; its service area lies only partially within Santa Clara
County, but it is providing water for natural groundwater recharge that benefits both Santa Clara and San
Benito Counties.
Due to the County’s groundwater resources, a significant number of mutual water companies, small
shared systems, and private and shared wells are also providing water service. These facilities are
privately owned, and it is beyond the scope of this report to collect and analyze data on these systems. It
should be noted that they are providing water service to the County’s residents from the groundwater
resources and are impacted by the same concerns for groundwater quality and costs as the public water
providers.
In addition to water service providers, this review also includes the two Resource Conservation Districts
operating within the County. They do not directly provide water service, but are involved in stewardship
of the County’s watersheds and environmental resources. Their efforts involve rural land management,
soil conservation and creek protection and enhancement, all of which provide benefit to the County’s
local surface water sources.
The following water providers are included in this review:
Cities
Special Districts Others
(water utility only)
Water Agencies Gilroy Private Water Purveyors
Santa Clara Valley Water District Milpitas California Water Service Company
Aldercroft Heights County Water
Morgan Hill Great Oaks Water Company
District
Purissima Hills County Water District Mountain View San Jose Water Company
San Martin County Water District Palo Alto Stanford University
Pacheco Pass Water District San Jose Municipal Water System West San Martin Water Works, Inc.
Resource Conservation Districts Santa Clara Related Agencies
Guadalupe-Coyote Resource San Francisco Public Utilities
Sunnyvale
Conservation District Commission
Loma Prieta Resource Conservation Bay Area Water Supply &
District Conservation Agency
Following is a countywide map depicting most of the water retailers, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD).
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 1
Executive Summary
Insert Water Retailer Map
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 2
Executive Summary
B. SERVICE REVIEW PURPOSE
LAFCo has authority over special districts and cities, but does not have authority over private entities
(private and investor-owned water companies are subject to the authority of the California Public Utilities
Commission). In accordance with Government Code §56425, LAFCo must conduct service reviews prior
to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year schedule for updating Spheres of Influence (SOIs) for
the agencies under its jurisdiction. The service review report must include an analysis of the issues and
written determinations for each of the following:
• Growth and population projections for the affected area;
• Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
• Financing constraints and opportunities;
• Cost avoidance opportunities;
• Opportunities for rate restructuring;
• Opportunities for shared facilities;
• Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or
reorganization of service providers;
• Evaluation of management efficiencies; and
• Local accountability and governance.
This Countywide Water Service Review will be available for use by LAFCO, the County, cities, special
districts and the public to better understand how water service is provided within Santa Clara County.
The Service Review will be used by LAFCO to update the spheres of individual agencies (cities and
special districts) including expansions or reductions in the sphere of influence (SOI) boundaries or
creation of new SOIs. This report will be specifically used to update the SOI for the four water districts
and the two resource conservation districts. With regard to the cities, LAFCO will use this information
along with the information gathered in the Countywide Fire Service Review and the subsequent sub-
regional service reviews to update the SOI of cities.
Although the service review report includes a discussion of various alternative government structures for
efficient service provision, LAFCO is NOT required to initiate any boundary changes based on service
reviews. LAFCO, other local agencies (including cities, special districts, and the County) or the public
may subsequently use the service reviews together with additional research and analysis, where
necessary, to pursue changes in jurisdictional boundaries.
LAFCO may also use the information in this service review in reviewing future proposals, and other
entities as well as the public may use this report as a foundation for further study and analysis of issues
relating to water supply and services within this county.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 3
Executive Summary
C. WATER SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS
A collaborative approach has been used throughout the preparation of the Countywide Water Service
Review. The input of the public agencies and private purveyors is highly valued, and multiple
opportunities were provided for their involvement. At the outset, Santa Clara LAFCo formed a Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide input and guidance on the process. The TAC includes members
from a number of the agencies, representing both North and South County interests as well as private
purveyors. The TAC has met three times over a period of several months to discuss issues, process and
report status.
A service review questionnaire was prepared by Santa Clara LAFCo with the assistance of the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). It was distributed to the agencies for their completion. The data
was collected and forwarded to the consulting team for review; follow-up interviews were then conducted
with agency staff. Agencies were provided an opportunity to review their individual sections, and a copy
of the preliminary report and determinations were provided to the TAC for review. Changes and
comments were incorporated as appropriate in preparation for release of the Public Review Draft.
D. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
Santa Clara County relies on three main sources of water: groundwater from the Santa Clara Valley
Basin, local surface water from creeks and streams, and imported water delivered through the Hetch
Hetchy Water System, the State Water Project, and the Central Valley Project. Each of these resources is
integral to the overall supply, although there are distinct differences in the sources available within the
County’s sub-regions. The South County is entirely dependent on groundwater for its potable supply,
making the groundwater contamination and treatment issues even more critical. There are currently no
other potable water supply alternatives in the South County area. The North County utilizes all three
sources – groundwater, local surface water and imported water – although the amount supplied by each
source varies by locale.
The two primary wholesale water agencies serving the County are the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The SCVWD treats local and
imported surface water for further distribution to the water retailers. The District is the designated
groundwater management agency for Santa Clara County and is responsible for managing the
groundwater resources including all natural and artificial recharge facilities. The District also partners in
the County’s recycled water programs and provides flood protection and services related to watershed
management. The extent of the services provided by the SFPUC is delivery of treated water through the
Hetch Hetchy System.
A schematic representation of the Santa Clara County water providers and water system is shown on the
next page, followed by maps of the water service providers in the North County and the South County.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 4
Executive Summary
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 5
Executive Summary
Insert North County Map
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 6
Executive Summary
Insert South County Map
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 7
Executive Summary
E. ISSUES AND TRENDS
There are a number of issues and trends affecting water service within Santa Clara County. Water service
is rarely static, and as environmental concerns increase and technology advances, changes in the approach
to water supply, demand and delivery will occur. Although the County’s water resources are managed
effectively, actions at the State and Federal level for water supply allocations delivered through the
Central Valley Project and State Water Project, groundwater contamination remediation and regulatory
requirements will ultimately impact water service in the County. These issues and trends should be noted
and factored into future decisions where appropriate. The following is a summary of the major issues and
trends identified in the Countywide Water Service Review process:
South County Water Supply
The South County sub-region overlies the Llagas Sub-basin, one of three sub-basins in the Santa Clara
Valley. The Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin is not adjudicated, meaning no legally prescribed
groundwater pumping rights have been established. The SCVWD is the recognized groundwater
management agency in Santa Clara County, is responsible for managing the supply to ensure that the
basins are replenished. In the South County this is accomplished through natural recharge as well as the
use of raw imported Central Valley Project water. Studies have shown that the groundwater basins have
been overdrafted in the past. However, most of the basins recover during wet years, and it has not been
necessary to implement overdraft or perennial yield concepts.
The South County water providers are entirely dependent on groundwater for potable supply. Each
agency has its own independent system of wells, pumping facilities and storage, and there are no
interconnections between the public agency systems. The SCVWD’s Santa Clara Conduit extends
through the South County region, carrying untreated Central Valley Project water from the San Luis
Reservoir to northern Santa Clara County. The first water treatment facility is located north of Morgan
Hill. The infrastructure requirements that would be needed to provide treated surface supply in the South
County have made this source cost prohibitive in the past.
Growth within the South County will naturally result in increased demand for potable water. With cost
increases for groundwater cleanup and escalating pump taxes, imported water may become a viable
supplemental alternative to the potable supply at some point in the future. If this source of water supply is
made available in the South County, it will be imperative that the public and private water providers are
working cooperatively on the overall management of the region’s water resources.
South County Groundwater Quality
The quality of the groundwater in the South County is at risk, both from nitrate levels due to septic
systems and surrounding agricultural land use as well as from perchlorate contamination from past
manufacturing operations. The situation is dire in portions of the unincorporated area of San Martin; the
Cherry Ranch Mutual Water Company has been ordered by the State Department of Health Services to
disconnect its system due to high nitrate levels and there are others facing similar circumstances. Due to
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 8
Executive Summary
the extent of the contamination and the physical requirements for treatment facilities, treatment is more
appropriately provided through a public agency supplying a number of connections rather than individual
wells or small mutual water companies.
The South County water agencies are collaborating in several ways on the groundwater quality issue. The
Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and the SCVWD are part of the Perchlorate Working Group, which is in
the process of developing a mitigation plan and actively pursuing government funding assistance as well
as restitution from the Olin Corporation (the owner of the manufacturing facility believed to have caused
the perchlorate contamination). The San Martin County Water District has already settled with Olin and
participates in the Perchlorate Community Advisory Group, established by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Other participants include the SCVWD, elected officials and community members. The
solutions for the groundwater quality issue in the South County will be implemented through multiple
channels (policy, planning, technology, and operations). Strong local government is needed along with
cooperation between the water providers so that the solutions and benefits are cost-effective and
sustainable, and serve the best interests of the region.
Coyote Valley Growth and Development
Plans for the future of the Coyote Valley are under development. The City of San Jose is in the process of
creating the Coyote Valley Specific Plan through a public process with significant community input. The
plan includes minimum development capacities of 50,000 jobs and 25,000 dwelling units to support a
resident population of 80,000. Detailed analysis is being conducted on infrastructure needs and projected
water demand, but it is not yet known which water providers will serve the area. The sources of water
have also not been fully identified nor is it known how it will be financed. Portions of the area are not
within San Jose’s Urban Service Area (USA) and LAFCo approval will be needed to expand the USA
boundary.
Mutual Water Companies and Privately Owned Water Systems
As mentioned earlier, there are a number of mutual water companies and privately-owned water systems
providing service within the County. These entities are an important component in the overall provision
of water service in the County but are not within LAFCo’s purview. Mutual water companies are a legal
entity with no specific requirement for the size of the system or number of connections. It essentially
means that there are shared interests in the water system and service. Mutual water companies may or
may not be subject to the authority of the California Public Utilities Commission, depending on certain
service parameters.
Water systems are classified and regulated differently based on the number of connections. Per records of
the California Department of Health Services and the County Department of Environmental Health, there
are 114 public water systems with 15 or more connections serving a total of 3,755 connections (excluding
the agencies covered in this review), and 71 registered State Small Water Systems that serve 5 to 14
connections. The systems that serve fewer than 5 connections are not regulated and a complete, accurate
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 9
Executive Summary
record was not available. All entities extracting groundwater are required to pay the pumping tax
imposed by the SCVWD because they benefit from the groundwater management services provided by
the District.
Smaller water mutuals, privately operated systems, and individual well owners typically do not have the
facilities to treat groundwater other than disinfection at the wellhead. When these systems are impacted,
they often seek the assistance of a larger public or private provider in the area that could extend service.
The State Department of Health Services is not in favor of point-of-use treatment systems, and is
encouraging small water systems to merge with larger providers.
This issue is particularly critical in the South County region where groundwater quality is impacted. The
San Martin County Water District receives at least one inquiry for service per month, but must decline
due to boundary limitations. In accordance with Government Code §56430, LAFCo will be updating the
San Martin County Water District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) in the near future. It will be important to
consider this situation and the long term prognosis for groundwater quality in the South County as a part
of the review.
Additional information on water system regulations within Santa Clara County is included in Appendix A.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – Capital Improvements Program
The northern portion of Santa Clara County depends on imported water delivered through the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Hetch Hetchy Water System for a portion of the potable
supply. In May 2002, the SFPUC approved a $3.6 billion Capital Improvement Program to repair,
replace and seismically upgrade the system’s infrastructure. Of that amount, approximately $715 million
is designated for local projects within the City and County of San Francisco; the majority, $2.9 billion, is
for regional projects that will benefit the residents of Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The
cost for the regional projects will be borne by the 28 water retailers within these three counties.
There is an ongoing concern for the Santa Clara County water agencies regarding cost escalation and
project delays. As of November 2004 total expenditures to date for regional projects was $32 million, or
1.8% of the Program Budget. It was expected that 50% of the cost would have been expended within the
first three years. Cost-to-Complete projections have also changed significantly. The original budget of
$2.9 billion has escalated to $3.3 billion, an increase of $423 million. Based on the 2002 cost projections,
it was estimated that the average monthly water bill for customers in the three counties would increase
from $32 to $71 by 2015. It is unknown how the additional $423 million in cost will affect this.
Recycled Water
Recycled water has become a viable alternative to potable supply for landscape and industrial uses in
some areas of the County. System infrastructure, treatment capacity, and distribution areas have reached
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 10
Executive Summary
a scale that makes it cost-effective and efficient for private companies and public institutions to commit to
using this source. Recycled water is produced at four wastewater treatment plants:
• South County Regional Wastewater Authority in Gilroy
• Regional Water Quality Control Plant in Palo Alto
• San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant in Alviso
• Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant
The SCVWD has factored recycled water into its long range planning; the production target for 2010 is
20,000 acre-feet, increasing to 44,000 acre-feet by 2020. The District owns the recycled water
distribution system in the South County.
The water providers are cooperating on recycled water production and use, and capital investments are
being made to expand this infrastructure. Recycled water demand is expected to increase for the
foreseeable future, and it will play an increasingly important role within the County’s overall water
supply outlook. More information is included in Appendix B.
F. REPORT STRUCTURE
The Countywide Water Service Review is structured by agency type (Special Districts, Cities, Private
Purveyors and Related Agencies). Included within these sections is a detailed review of each agency
based on the nine areas of analysis required by Government Code §56430. Determinations are included
for each of the public agencies. Profiles of the individual agencies and private companies are included in
Appendix C.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 11
22.. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Aldercroft Heights County Water District
Purissima Hills County Water District
San Martin County Water District
Pacheco Pass Water District
Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 12
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
A. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Overview
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the primary water resources agency for Santa Clara
County. First formed as the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District in 1929, it now acts not only
as the County's water wholesaler, but also as its flood protection agency and is the steward for its streams
and creeks, underground aquifers and district-built reservoirs.
The District owns and manages 10 local surface reservoirs and associated creeks and recharge facilities,
manages the County’s groundwater basins and 3 water treatment plants, imports water from the Central
Valley Project and the State Water Project, and delivers recycled water to parts of the County. The
District is also responsible for flood protection within the County. Its stewardship responsibilities include
creek restoration and wildlife habitat projects, pollution prevention efforts and a commitment to natural
flood protection.
The District is an independent special district, with jurisdiction throughout Santa Clara County. The
introductory paragraph of the District’s enabling legislation reads:
"An act to create a flood control district to be called Santa Clara County Flood
Control and Water District; to provide for the control and conservation of flood
and storm waters and the protection of watercourses, watersheds, public
highways, life and property from damage or destruction from such waters; to
provide for the acquisition, retention, and reclaiming of drainage, storm, flood,
and other waters and to save, conserve, and distribute such waters for beneficial
use in said district; to authorize the incurring of indebtedness, the issuance and
sale of bonds, and the levying and collection of taxes and assessments on property
within said district and in the respective zones thereof; to define the powers of
said district; to provide for the government, management, and operation of said
district and for the acquisition and construction of property and works to carry
out the purposes of the district, declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect
immediately. The name of the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water
District Act was changed to the Santa Clara Valley Water District."
1. Growth and Population
Santa Clara County had an estimated population of 1,719,537 in 2003 per the State Department of
Finance. ABAG projects that the population will reach 2,267,100 by 2030 with an average annual growth
rate of 1.2%. The potential for future development and population growth varies significantly across the
County. The highest growth rates are projected for Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara. This has bearing
on the water service provided by the SCVWD as growth drives water demand and development patterns
determine the type and capacity of future system infrastructure needs. The northern portion of the County
uses treated surface water deliveries as well as groundwater while the southern portion is entirely
dependent on groundwater. Local surface water and imported surface water are recharged in both areas
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 13
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
through District groundwater management programs, supplementing the natural groundwater supply.
ABAG has projected the following population and growth rates, including unincorporated area within
each city’s sphere of influence:
Projected 2030 Annual Growth
Area
Population Rate
North & Central County
Campbell 43,400 0.4%
Cupertino 60,200 0.3%
Los Altos 31,500 1.0%
Los Altos Hills 10,700 0.2%
Los Gatos 35,500 0.3%
Milpitas 91,400 1.6%
Monte Sereno 4,800 0.4%
Mountain View 89,600 1.0%
Palo Alto 92,200 1.0%
San Jose 1,339,400 1.4%
Santa Clara 142,100 1.2%
Saratoga 33,900 0.4%
Sunnyvale 159,100 0.8%
South County
Gilroy 66,400 1.0%
Morgan Hill 50,000 0.9%
Remaining Unincorporated Area (including San Martin) 16,900 0.4%
Countywide 2,267,100 1.2%
Source: ABAG Projections 2005
ABAG’s projections are slightly higher than the data included in the SCVWD’s 2001 Urban Water
Management Plan; however, the District monitors updated planning projections and adjusts its programs
accordingly. The SCVWD has addressed the projected population growth and related increase in demand
based upon ABAG's 1998 projections through its long-range planning efforts, Integrated Water Resources
Planning and Urban Water Management Plan.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is the groundwater management agency and the primary water
wholesaler within Santa Clara County. Its Water Utility Enterprise manages all aspects of water supply
planning, including conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources; imported water
acquisitions; coordination with local, state and federal water interests; water treatment and delivery
system operations; new water resources development; groundwater basin protection; infrastructure and
asset management planning; emergency operations; financial, strategic and business planning; and
communication. Its Watershed Operations core business is responsible for providing flood protection,
ensuring clean, safe water in creeks and bays, creating healthy creek ecosystems and establishing
partnerships for trails, parks and open space along waterways. In FY 2003-2004 the SCVWD completed
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 14
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
a major update of its Integrated Water Resources Planning studies (IWRP). The IWRP is based on a
planning horizon that extends through year 2040 and is the District’s primary water supply planning
document.
Water Demands
Per the SCVWD’s Urban Water Management Plan, overall water demand within Santa Clara County is
estimated as follows: 52 % Residential, 24% Commercial and Public, 9% Agricultural, 9% Industrial and
6% other. The District sells treated water and manages the groundwater sub-basins supplying major
public and private water purveyors and private well owners; and also provides water directly to
agricultural users. Major retailers include the following:
Water Use – 2003
Retailer
(SCVWD supply only)
Public Agencies
City of Milpitas 4,332 AF
City of Mountain View 1,496 AF
San Jose Municipal Water System 16,190 AF
City of Santa Clara 19,545 AF
City of Sunnyvale 12,294 AF
City of Gilroy 7,205 AF
City of Morgan Hill 7,730 AF
San Martin County Water District 137 AF
Private Water Companies
California Water Co. 14,926 AF
Great Oaks Water Co. 12,792 AF
New Avenue Mutual Water Company 209 AF
San Jose Water Company 130,132 AF
West San Martin Water Works 388 AF
Source: SCVWD records
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 15
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
The SCVWD’s Water Utility Enterprise Report (August 2004) lists the following water use for Calendar
Year 2003:
Actual
Water Use by Source of Supply 2003 Percent of Total
(Acre-ft/yr)
I. Water Production
In-District Groundwater Pumping 146,900 40%
District Treated Water 130,600 36%
District Surface Water Irrigation 3,000 1%
Recycled Water 600 0%
Non-District (Import, Local, & Recycled) 86,100 23%
Total Water Production 367,200 100%
II. Water Use
District Municipal & Industrial 253,500 69%
District Agricultural 27,600 8%
Non-District (Import, Local and Recycled) 86,100 23%
Total Water Use 367,200 100%
Source: Table 2-1, WUER August 2004
Increase in demand is expected to bear some relationship to the projected residential and commuter
population increase within a given area. Projected water demand in the Urban Water Management Plan
for year 2020 is 435,289 acre feet per year, a 22% increase over 2003 estimates, similar to the projected
increase in population. These projected demands take into account the aggressive water conservation
program being implemented by SCVWD. Without the savings from these conservation programs, the
estimated 2020 demands would be an additional 64,000 acre-feet.
Water Conservation
The District, as the lead agency, has been aggressively implementing water conservation programs in co-
operation with its thirteen water retailers since 1992. Water conservation is a key component of the
District’s updated Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP 2003) to ensure long-term water supply
reliability in Santa Clara County.
These conservation programs for residents, businesses and agriculture help meet short-term demands
placed on the water supply during critical dry periods. These programs also reduce flows to area
wastewater treatment facilities, mitigating environmental impacts. By 2020, the District plans to save over
64,000 acre-feet of water per year through its current baseline programs and an additional 24,000 through
future conservation programs (considered building-blocks in IWRP 2003).
In 2003, savings attributable to all District conservation programs reached 31,600 acre-feet, putting the
District on target to meet its IWRP 2003 conservation goals.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 16
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
Water Supply
The SCVWD’s Water Utility Enterprise Report (August 2004) lists the following data on annual water
supply and distribution for Santa Clara County for calendar year 2003:
Actual
Percent of
Supply 2003
Total
(Acre-ft/yr)
I. Annual Water Supply
District Supply
Imported Water to County:
CVP Imports 106,400 30%
State Water Project Imports 76,100 21%
Total District Imports 182,500
Local Surface Water 90,500 25%
SCRWA Recycled Water 600 0%
Non-District Supply
Hetch Hetchy 59,400 17%
Other Reservoirs and Streams (SJWC & Stanford) 14,900 4%
Other Recycled Water 8,200 2%
Total Annual Water Supply 356,100 100%
II. Distribution of Annual Water Supply
Distribution Within District System
To Treated Water 130,600 37%
To Surface Water: Irrigation/Environment 24,200 7%
To Recycled Water 600 0%
To Managed Recharge
Santa Clara Groundwater Basin 74,800 21%
Coyote & Llagas Groundwater Basin 43,400 12%
Subtotal – Distribution to District System 273,600
Non-District Distribution
Hetch Hetchy 59,400 17%
San Jose Water Company and Stanford 14,900 4%
Other Recycled Water 8,200 2%
Subtotal – Non-District Distribution 82,500
Total Distribution of Annual Water Supply 356,100 100%
Source: Table 2-2, WUER August 2004
Per the 2001 Urban Water Management Plan, the projected long-term average supply for year 2020
ranges between 496,000 to 546,000 acre-feet.
The SCVWD’s water supply system spans the length of the County from the San Francisco Bay in the
north to Gilroy in the south and includes the following:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 17
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 142 miles
Reservoirs (Dams) 10
Total Water Storage Volume 169,415 AF
Pump Stations 3
Canals 17.3 miles (4 separate canals)
Water Treatment Plants 3
Tunnels 8.4 miles*
Groundwater Recharge Ponds 393 Acres
*Includes USBR facilities operated by SCVWD
Local Reservoirs
The SCVWD has ten local reservoirs located throughout the county. These reservoirs are filled by stream
flows and water that flows overland and is collected in the reservoirs. The average surface flow in the
County is approximately 193,700 acre feet per year; however only about 91,000 acre feet can be captured
and used through surface diversions or groundwater recharge. This is due to a number of factors,
including recharge capacity in proximity to a given stream and capacity limits of the District’s storage,
recharge and conveyance facilities.
The reservoirs both store water for later use and can provide flood control protection. Stored water is
used for groundwater recharge, in the creeks or off stream facilities or to supply water to the SCVWD's
water treatment plants. The following summarizes the District’s reservoirs:
Year
Facility Capacity (AF)
Constructed
Almaden 1,780 1935
Anderson 89,073 1950
Calero 10,050 1935
Chesbro 8,952 1955
Coyote 22,925 1936
Guadalupe 3,723 1935
Lexington 19,834 1952
Stevens Creek 3,465 1935
Uvas 9,935 1957
Vasona 400 1935
Total 170,137
The largest dam operated by the SCVWD is the Anderson Reservoir located on Coyote Creek about two
miles east of Morgan Hill. The reservoir includes a 240-foot high compacted earth dam. Power is
generated through the Anderson Hydroelectric Facility at the reservoir outlet.
The California Department of Water Resources performs regular inspections of the District’s dams for
general condition as well as structural integrity. In addition, the SCVWD has a dam safety program to
proactively address any issues. The District has included a number of reservoir-related projects in its
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 18
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
Capital Improvement Plan, including the following: dam improvements, instrumentation and dam seepage
repairs; improvements or modifications to the outlet works at Almaden, Lenihan (Lexington Reservoir),
Guadalupe, and Calero; and addressing bank erosion at the Anderson Reservoir. The total appropriated
capital investment through 2005 is $43.6 million with additional projected funding needs of $16.4 million
through 2013.
Groundwater
The SCVWD is the groundwater management agency for Santa Clara County. As such, it is responsible
for managing groundwater use and recharge in addition to protecting groundwater quality. Groundwater
provides about half of the County’s potable water supply. Ground water is less expensive than treated
water and usually of such high quality that it does not require additional water treatment.
Santa Clara County overlies three sub-basins – Santa Clara Valley, Coyote and Llagas. The Santa Clara
Valley Sub-basin is bounded by the Coyote Narrows at Metcalf Road in the south, San Francisco Bay to
the north, the Santa Cruz Mountains on the west and the Diablo Range on the east. The operational
storage capacity of the subbasin is estimated at 350,000 acre feet.
The Coyote Subbasin extends from Metcalf Road south to Cochrane Road. This subbasin is unconfined
and groundwater flows into both the Santa Clara Valley and Llagas Subbasins. The District provides
recharge into this subbasin for direct benefit to wells in the area and further benefit to the other two
subbasins. Through its groundwater management studies and IWRP process, the District has estimated
the operational storage capacity of the Coyote Sub-basin at 25,000 acre feet.
The Llagas Subbasin extends from Cochrane Road south to the County’s southern border. It is bounded
to the south by the Pajaro River. The operational storage capacity is estimated at 150,000 acre feet.
Groundwater in the northern portion of this subbasin has been impacted by perchlorate and nitrate
contamination. Some wells require treatment in order to meet water quality objectives.
The groundwater basins are recharged through both natural and artificial means. The District operates
and maintains artificial recharge facilities at 18 major recharge pond systems and 30 local creeks. Runoff
is captured in the District’s reservoirs and released into the recharge facilities for percolation. In addition,
raw imported water is used for recharge particularly in the southern portion of the County due to limited
surface supply for recharge.
Per the District’s Water Utility Enterprise Report (August 2004), the District replenished the Santa Clara
Valley Sub-basin with approximately 79,200 AF of locally conserved and imported water. The Coyote
and Llagas Sub-basins were replenished with approximately 32,500 AF of locally conserved and imported
water.
Land subsidence due to groundwater overpumping has been an issue for Santa Clara County as well as a
number of other counties in California that are highly dependent on groundwater sources. The SCVWD
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 19
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
is monitoring groundwater levels and land surface levels in subsidence areas; through proactive
management and the appropriate use of water supply sources, the District is working to ensure that land
subsidence will not re-initiate
The District is providing leadership in dealing with the perchlorate contamination issue. The Perchlorate
Working Group, a partnership between the SCVWD, Morgan Hill, Gilroy and the County is providing a
coordinated, focused effort to ensure contaminated groundwater is treated and to minimize the cost to the
community. The Working Group has proposed a strategy that includes containing a 10-mile long plume
of perchlorate stretching from the southern portion of Morgan Hill to Highway 152, long term restoration
of the region’s water supply, and a cost recovery plan for the SCVWD and Morgan Hill. These two
agencies have spent nearly $5 million to clean up contaminated water supplies. As a result of the Working
Group’s efforts, the US Congress recently approved $2.25 million in funding to address this
contamination issue.
As the groundwater management agency, the SCVWD prepared a Groundwater Management Plan in
2001 which addresses groundwater supply management, groundwater monitoring programs, and
groundwater quality management programs. This plan provides the framework for guiding the District’s
groundwater management operations and is intended to complement the District’s Integrated Water
Resources Plan (IWRP). As a supplement to the Groundwater Management Plan, Groundwater
Conditions Reports are prepared annually to document groundwater conditions. The Groundwater
Management Plan includes five recommendations for further analysis and action:
1) Coordination between the Groundwater Management Plan and the IWRP
2) Integration of groundwater management programs and activities
3) Optimization of recharge operations
4) Improved understanding of the groundwater basin
5) Effective coordination and communication with internal and external agencies
The SCVWD is addressing these recommendations through its planning efforts and Capital Improvement
Plan.
Imported Water
The SCVWD receives imported water through the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley
Project. Water is conveyed to Santa Clara County through two main facilities: the South Bay Aqueduct
for State Water Project water, and the San Felipe Project for Central Valley Project water. The raw water
is used for surface deliveries to some agricultural users, groundwater recharge or treated at one of the
District’s three water treatment plants.
The South Bay Aqueduct is owned and operated by the State Department of Water Resources. Water
deliveries to Santa Clara County began in 1965. The Aqueduct terminates at the Penitencia Water
Treatment Plant in east San Jose. The SCVWD is a State Water Project contractor and has a current
Table A allotment of 100,000 acre-feet per year; the percentage of the allotment to be delivered each year
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 20
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
is determined by the DWR based on yearly conditions in the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta and upstream
reservoir storage.
Water from the San Felipe Project is delivered from the San Luis Reservoir through the Pacheco and
Santa Clara Conduits. The Central Valley Project is owned and operated by the US Bureau of
Reclamation. Water deliveries to Santa Clara County began in 1987. The Pacheco Conduit begins at the
San Luis Reservoir and feeds into the Santa Clara Conduit. This pipeline traverses Gilroy, San Martin
and Morgan Hill, terminating at the Coyote Pump Station near Coyote Creek west of the Anderson
Reservoir. The SCVWD is a San Felipe Division contractor and has a contract for the delivery of
152,500 acre feet per year; annual deliveries are determined by the USBR based on yearly conditions in
the Delta and upstream reservoir storage.
Imported water is the most costly source of supply, and potentially the most unreliable because of
hydrologic variability and regulatory restrictions. The SCVWD is actively engaged in managing its
imported water programs. A number of projects that will improve reliability and capacity are included
the District’s Capital Improvements Plan, including improvements to the San Luis Reservoir Low Point
(partnering with DWR, USBR and other CVP contractors), stabilizing the Santa Clara Tunnel landslide,
improvements to the Pacheco pumping plant, and resolving operation problems related to shutdowns on
South County and San Benito County transmission lines. The District has also identified the need to
acquire right of way along some pipelines to improve operations and reduce emergency response times.
$23.1 million in funding has been appropriated through 2005 and the need for an additional $16.2 million
in funding has been identified for 2006 through 2013.
The SCVWD considers water banking a viable strategy to increase imported reliability in dry years and
reduce future supply costs. Water banking is a program whereby the District is able to store excess State
or Central Valley Project water during average and wet years to ensure adequate supply during dry years.
The District banks water in groundwater storage outside of the County. A portion of the District’s State
or Federal water supply water is conveyed to a banking partner, another water district that operates a
groundwater conjunctive use program. The District primarily uses the Semitropic Water Storage District
in Kern County for State Water, and has banked CVP water at the San Justo Reservoir in San Benito
County in the past. The District has appropriated $3.56 million through 2005 for the Semitropic
Groundwater Banking Program. An additional $26.8 million will be needed through 2013 to carry out
this program to the level planned.
Water Treatment
The District operates three water treatment plants, all in the central and northern portions of Santa Clara
County. These are the Rinconada plant in Los Gatos, the Santa Teresa plant in the Almaden Valley, and
the Penitencia plant in the foothills of east San Jose. Plant capacity and age is summarized below:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 21
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
Nominal Treatment
Year
Water Treatment Plant Primary Water Source Capacity
Constructed
(avail for retail use)
Penitencia South Bay Aqueduct 40 MGD 1974
South Bay Aqueduct or
Rinconada 80 MGD 1967
San Felipe Project
San Felipe Project,
Santa Teresa Anderson and Calero 100 MGD 1988
Reservoirs
The District has appropriated $116 million for water treatment plant upgrades in 2004 and 2005. An
additional need for $24.2 million has been identified through 2010.
Water Transmission and Distribution
The SCVWD transmission and distribution system includes 3 pumping stations, 142 miles of pipeline and
8.4 miles of tunnel. Recently completed projects include the Almaden Valley Pipeline Cathodic
Protection System, pipeline protection and modifications, and the Milpitas Pipeline relocation.
One significant facility recently completed in the northern county is an intertie between the SCVWD and
SFPUC systems that has the capacity to pass 40 million gallons of treated water per day during
emergencies or service interruptions, planned or unplanned. The connection is located in Milpitas and
improves water reliability in the northern and central portions of the county. The total estimated cost for
this facility is $9.8 million, which was shared 50/50 with SFPUC.
The District has allocated $12.2 million for infrastructure improvements in 2004 and 2005, and has
identified an additional $23.5 million for 2006 through 2013.
Recycled Water
Recycled water plays a vital role in the long term water supply outlook for Santa Clara County and the
SCVWD has factored it into its long range planning. For its long range planning, the District uses the
following projections for annual production:
• Recycled Water Target for 2010 20,000 AF
• Recycled Water Target for 2020 44,000 AF
In 1999 the District adopted two Ends policies, or goals, that state that water recycling will account for
5% of total water use in 2010 and 10% in 2020. In support of this goal, the District has completed an
Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Feasibility Study to evaluate potential new markets and uses for
recycled water if its quality were enhanced. The District has also approved funding to pilot advanced
treatment technology of local recycled water. The advanced treatment will improve the overall quality of
the tertiary treated wastewater so that it will not impact the quality of the groundwater basin. The District
will be the recycled water wholesaler in the future Coyote Valley development, per an existing
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 22
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
agreement. This advanced treatment technology is vital in ensuring that recycled water quality is
appropriate for the uses in Coyote Valley.
Recycled water is produced at four wastewater treatment plants located in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose
and Gilroy. The District has entered into recycling partnerships with San Jose and Sunnyvale and is
pursuing greater involvement with recycling programs with the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control
Plant. To provide incentive for recycled water source development in North County, the SCVWD
subsidizes any recycled water project that offsets the demand for SCVWD treated water at $115 per acre
foot of recycled water developed.
In the South County the South County Regional Wastewater Authority is the producer and the District
owns and operates the recycled water distribution system. To date, the District completed its South
County Recycled Water Improvements Project that included total funding of $7.0 million.
Watershed and Stream Stewardship
In addition to its wholesale water operations and groundwater management, the SCVWD is the lead
agency in the county charged with providing watershed stewardship programs and services.
Watershed stewardship is the management of natural resources in a manner that fosters ecosystem health
for the county’s more than 700 miles of streams, improved water quality, flood protection and compatible
recreational opportunities.
Its funding stream for watershed stewardship is comprised of property taxes, capital reimbursements from
state and federal partners, intergovernmental revenues from grants and voter-approved benefit
assessments and special property taxes – including the Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection
special tax approved by voters in November 2000.
The main components of the SCVWD’s watershed stewardship program are as follows:
• Providing flood protection including: planning, design and construction of large-scale flood
protection capital projects; maintenance of already-constructed flood protection infrastructure; flood-
fighting emergency response and sandbag programs; flood safety-focused public outreach; land
development review; and permitting for activities in the District’s jurisdictional areas.
• Ensuring clean, safe water in creeks and bays including: protection of local waterways from
pollutants such as mercury and Diazinon; keeping neighborhood creeks free from trash and debris;
clearing bridges and floodwalls of graffiti; inspecting creeks for illegal dumping; and cleaning creek
channels of illegally dumped chemicals.
• Creating healthy creek and bay ecosystems including: repairing and strengthening stream banks to
improve property protection, creek side vegetation and water quality; protecting threatened and
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 23
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
endangered species; removing invasive plant species from local waterways; and restoring natural
habitat, fisheries and native plant species
• Establishing trails, parks and open space along waterways including: creating partnerships with
cities and the county to provide creek side parks and trails, on-water recreation at reservoirs, preserve
natural floodplains as open space resources and provide alternate transportation corridors;
administering an annual grant program for the construction of trails or purchase of open space.
Summary
The SCVWD’s Integrated Water Resources Plan serves as the District’s guiding document for
comprehensive management of Santa Clara County’s water resources through 2040. The District’s water
supply is obtained through a combination of groundwater, local surface, recycled, and imported water.
The northern and central portions of the County rely on both groundwater (including recharged local and
imported surface supplies) and treated surface supplies; the southern portion depends on groundwater
(including recharged local and imported surface supplies) for its sole source of potable supply. The
District proactively manages the water resources and has planned for system improvements to increase
water reliability and efficiency. The District has planned for system needs through its IWRP,
Groundwater Management Plan, and Capital Improvement Plan. The recently completed intertie
connection between the SCVWD and SFPUC treated water transmission systems is an example of the
projects the District is undertaking to help ensure reliability during emergency or temporary service
interruptions. The District’s Water Conservation Program is essential to improving water supply
reliability because the water savings achieved from implementing conservation will reduce current and
future water demand. This is critical in that not only will it assist in meeting long-term reliability goals,
but will also assist in meeting short-term demands placed on the water supply system during critical dry
years.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The SCVWD uses both governmental and proprietary funds to account for its operations. The proprietary
funds include the Water Enterprise, Equipment and Risk Insurance Funds. The governmental funds
include the District’s General Fund as well as special revenue funds for five geographic watershed areas,
the Clean, Safe Creeks & Natural Flood Protection program, and the Watershed and Stream Stewardship
Fund. The District has established a reserve policy that includes prescribed levels for Operating
Reserves, Capital Reserves and Reserves for Funded and Contingent Liabilities.
The District uses a biennial budgeting process and a ten-year planning timeframe for its Capital
Improvement Plan. A summary of the District’s amended adopted budget for 2004-2005 follows:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 24
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
2004-2005 Amended Water Utility
Combined Funds
Budget only
Revenue $249,357,626 $152,338,728
Operating Outlay $183,527,865 $124,850,746
Capital Projects $120,500,384 $70,766,036
Other Funding Sources* $46,345,097 $40,474,242
Balance Available ($8,325,526) ($2,803,812)
Reserves:
Operating Reserves $44,770,605 $19,194,130
Capital Reserves $62,577,131 $4,533,455
Contingent Liabilities $42,266,883 $21,873,374
Total Reserves $149,614,619 $45,600,958
* includes interfund transfers and financing
The amended budget for 2004-2005 funds operating and capital needs from District revenue sources,
planned debt financing and by using $8,325,526 from available reserves. District revenue is derived from
a variety of sources:
Revenue Source % of Total Revenue
Property Tax 24.6%
Special Parcel Tax 10.8%
Benefit Assessments 7.8%
Intergovernmental Services 0.9%
Groundwater Charges 20.1%
Treated Water Charges 26.1%
Surface/Reclaimed Water Sales 0.4%
Interest 3.7%
Capital Reimbursements/Contributions 2.5%
Other 3.1%
The SCVWD finances major capital projects by issuing revenue bonds, commercial paper or Certificates
of Participation. The Water Utility Enterprise budget for 2004-2005 includes revenue from the issuance
of $40,000,000 in commercial paper to be used for capital projects. Long term debt includes $5,835,000
in Water Enterprise General Obligation bonds at interest rates range from 3.88% to 5.285%. The District
also issued Water Utility Revenue Bonds in 2000. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2004 was
$56,402,000 comprised of $51,483,000 of tax-exempt bonds with interest rates at 5.198% and $4,919,000
of taxable bonds with interest rates at 7.878%. Overall, the SCVWD has $294 million in long term debt
and other non-current liabilities as of June 30, 2004. The District has different credit ratings on its
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 25
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
various types of debt instruments all generally within the same range. The latest ratings are AA+ by
Standard and Poor’s and Aa2 by Moody’s.
The SCVWD has been significantly impacted by the State budget act of 2004 which requires special
districts to contribute to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) for FY 2004-2005 and
2005-2006 through a reduction in property tax revenue. The District’s adopted budget approved in June
2004 factored in an $11.2 million contingency for the expected reduction in property tax revenues with
the elimination of operating contingency appropriations for most funds and a reallocation of other
reserves to a newly established State Budget Impact-ERAF Reserve. The actual contribution calculated
in November 2004 is 10% of total district revenues or $51 million for the two year period. The District is
in the process of determining how this revenue shortfall should be addressed, but it will likely result in
project delays, operational cutbacks, and increased rates.
The District uses two Water Utility Zones (Zone W-2 and W-5) to account for operations within its Water
Utility Enterprise. The North County (Zone W-2) comprises approximately 80% of the District’s water
consumption. Due to higher costs in North County, this zone accounts for approximately 95% of Water
Utility revenue. The following table summarizes the actual FY 2002-2003 finances for each water charge
zone of the District’s Water Utility Enterprise.
Santa Clara Valley Water District – North County Water Fund FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
($ thousands)
Revenue - Water Sales $117.66 71.5%
Capital Carryforward $40.40 24.5%
Other Revenue $6.57 4.0%
Total $164.63 100%
Expenses - Operations $81.32 40.6%
Water Purchases * $25.13 12.6%
CIP Projects $91.60 45.8%
Other $2.11 1%
Total $200.16 100%
Santa Clara Valley Water District – South County Water Fund FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales $5.20 90.7%
Other Revenue $0.53 9.3%
Total $5.73 100%
Expenses - Operations $5.84 74.4%
Water Purchases * $0.92 11.7%
CIP Projects (Amortized) $1.09 13.9%
Total $7.85 100%
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 26
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
In the past revenue for the North has funded District operations in the South County, essentially providing
a rate subsidy. The District is working directly with retailers in the North County to rectify this situation
and provide parity in the rate structure for each area. Rates in the South County were significantly
increased in 2004-2005 in order to restore financial stability and ensure that revenue covers costs.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The District is aggressively seeking cost avoidance opportunities, particularly in light of the magnitude of
the impact from the State budget act discussed earlier. The District employed cost containment strategies
in its FY 2004-2005 Addendum budget, including evaluating cost escalation factors used in preparation of
the initial biennial budget. The District also completed a comprehensive analysis of core services and
delivery processes, including streamlining operations, re-prioritizing projects, and deferring non-critical
planning activities. This effort resulted in approximately $6.2 million in debt financing reduction.
The District is developing an asset management plan which will allow comprehensive tracking of costs,
maintenance, replacement and other system needs. This life cycle maintenance management approach
will optimize the repair/replacement of water utility facilities and systems.
The District is also capitalizing on cost avoidance opportunities through the strategic management of its
water resources. Local supplies are inherently more cost efficient than imported supplies, and the District
has included capital projects in order to develop local supply sources. As described above, the SCVWD
is participating in the Semitropic Groundwater Banking program in order to reduce the costs for future
imported water supply.
The District is also providing a $115 per acre foot incentive to encourage the development of recycled
water supplies in the North County. With targets set at 5% of total supply in 2010 and 10% of total
supply in 2020, the District is actively engaged in maximizing recycled supplies to offset potable demand,
including the development of a pilot plant for advance treated tertiary water that could have expanded use
within the County.
The District’s 2004-2005 budget included funding for 903 staff positions. However, with the impacts
from the State budget act, the District recently eliminated 90 vacant positions (10% of the permanent
work force) in order to reduce personnel costs.
The SCVWD has a comprehensive conservation program in order to reduce demand. The District is also
maximizing its groundwater recharge opportunities in order to reduce overall costs.
5. Management Efficiencies
The SCVWD is achieving management efficiencies through its operational methods, budgeting approach
and long term planning efforts.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 27
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
In 1999 the Board of Directors formally adopted a series of Ends policies, or goals for the District. These
policies are used in the decision-making process and each program or project must directly support at
least one of these policies. In 2003, the District reorganized its Operations into two separate core
business areas: Water Utility Enterprise and Watersheds. The Water Utility Enterprise is comprised of
the Water Utility Operations and Water Supply Management divisions, the Office of Emergency Services,
and the Planning, Finance and Communications Unit. Watershed Operations is structured in three
divisions. Each division is responsible for both a geographic area of focus and programs and
services that support the operation as a whole such as regulatory compliance, ecological services,
vegetation management, community projects review, stream water quality and watershed planning. A
business management unit is charged with financial planning, customer relations, and maintaining the
Watersheds’ ISO 9001:2000 and 14001 certifications.
The District is planning to develop an asset management plan which will allow comprehensive tracking of
costs, maintenance, replacement and other system needs. The Water Utility Enterprise also uses cost
centers for legal and accounting reporting.
In 2003, the District implemented the SMART Business Program, an organizational improvement
initiative. The program focuses on customer service, employee involvement, performance, quality and
business results. Accomplishments to date include: completion of the needs assessment for achieving
ISO 9001/14001 certification; completion of the District Green Business assessment process; and
implementation of the District SMART Ideas program. Future process improvement strategies include
identification of the District core services, its customers, and alignment to District policies, planning,
budgeting, procedures and performance metrics.
Performance measurements are used for each organizational segment of District operations. Targets for
each goal are set, and year to date results are reported quarterly for the current year as well as the final
result for the prior year. This feedback highlights performance that meets or exceeds the stated targets as
well as issues that may need correction.
6. Shared Facilities
The SCVWD shares facilities with a number of agencies. It shares infrastructure with the SFPUC
through the emergency intertie in Milpitas, as well as imported water facilities with the Department of
Water Resources and the US Bureau of Reclamation. (The District has a contract to operate some of the
infrastructure owned by USBR.) The water banking that the District is engaged in through the Semitropic
Groundwater Banking Program is expected to provide long-term benefits for Santa Clara County. The
preparation and implementation of the IWRP includes the involvement of other agencies as well.
The District is a signatory to a number of Joint Powers Agreements, including the San Luis and Delta-
Mendota Water Authority to provide 3 million acre feet for Municipal/Industrial use, agriculture, and a
wildlife refuge; the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the Pajaro River Flood Protection
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 28
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
Authority. The District also holds membership in many associations and coalitions to further its water
management interests.
In the South County, the District has partnered with the South County Regional Wastewater Authority
and the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill to implement the South County Water Recycling Program. The
District is also the recycled water wholesaler in South County. The District is also providing leadership in
the Perchlorate Working Group to address perchlorate contamination issues, including mitigation and
financial restitution.
The District implements a comprehensive Water Conservation Program county wide in co-operation with
its retailers. As a signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council's Memorandum of
Understanding (adopted by District Board in 1991), the District is committed to implementing a number
of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for urban water conservation. The Central Valley Project
Improvement Act also requires implementation of various BMPs related to agriculture.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The District has contracts to purchase imported water from the State Department of Water Resources and
the US Bureau of Reclamation. As part of the revised schedule for the Central Valley Project this last
year, the contract renewal with USBR will increase the cost of CVP water by $6.2 million in FY 2004-05
and $9.4 million in FY 2005-06. This increase is due to the USBR’s transition from lower “contract”
rates to higher “cost of services” rates for imported water delivered through the CVP.
In response to the cost increase, the District has made plans to reduce internal costs. Such plans include
reducing operational costs, delaying major capital projects and maximizing the use of commercial paper
debt financing.
Demand Rates
The wholesale water rate structure is different for the North and South County delivery areas. The
difference is primarily due to the type of water delivered, treatment processes and infrastructure required.
South County rates are lower, primarily due to the fact that that area gets more of its water as a percentage
from more cost-effective local supplies than North County does.
Over the past two years, the District has significantly expanded its operational activities in the South
County in the areas of recycling, water conservation, asset management, security and groundwater quality
management. To avoid “rate shock” in those years, the Board chose to increase rates less than would be
required to bring revenue and costs into balance. Since then, increases in the CVP rate schedule for
imported water and the initiation of an interest charge on outstanding debt to the South County has
resulted in the recommendation for an accelerated increase in South County rates.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 29
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
The District sets wholesale rates at a level sufficient to meet the costs of water supply commitments and
water quality standards, while remaining sensitive to the economic conditions affecting its retailers. The
District used cost containment efforts, re-prioritization of capital projects, and re-evaluation of debt
financing alternatives to hold 2004-2005 rate increases to 8% for the North County and 25% for the South
County. There are additional cost pressures in the South County related to recycled water operations and
meter maintenance. Therefore, the rate increase in the south was higher than anticipated. The following
is a table of historical water rates for the North and South County.
Summary of Water Charges and Percentage Increases
($ per Acre-Foot)
2001-02 2002-03 Inc 2003-04 Inc 2004-05 Inc
North County Treated Water -
$410 $420 2% $460 10% $495 8%
Contract
North County Groundwater
Municipal/Industrial $330 $340 3% $375 10% $405 8%
Agricultural $33 $34 3% $37.50 10% $40.50 8%
South County Groundwater
Municipal/Industrial $130 $140 8% $160 14% $200 25%
Agricultural $13 $14 8% $16 14% $20 25%
* Source: Table 1-1, WUER, August 2004t
A number of factors have affected rates recently, including the following:
• The US Bureau of Reclamation has moved from contract rates to higher cost of services rates for
CVP water.
• Cumulative costs in the South County through FY 2003-2004 exceed cumulative revenues. This
imbalance is projected to continue for the next four years.
• There is a significant uncertainty regarding future revenues and costs caused by the State budget
crisis and perchlorate contamination in the South County. The District is aggressively pursuing
full cost recovery from Olin Corporation, or other responsible parties in relation to the perchlorate
contamination in the South County, but no responsible parties have yet agreed to reimbursement.
Each spring, the District holds a public hearing on multiple dates to receive comments from citizens and
interest groups on the water rates proposed for the next fiscal year.
8. Government Structure Options
The SCVWD is an independent special district created by an act of the State legislature. Per Section 2 of
the Act, the District shall consist of all the territory of the County of Santa Clara lying within the exterior
boundaries of the County. Furthermore, the District is authorized to store water in surface or underground
reservoirs within or outside of the District for the common benefit of the district or of any zone or zones
affected; to conserve reclaim, recycle, distribute, store, and manage water for present and future use
within the District; to appropriate and acquire water and water rights, and import water into the district
and to conserve within or outside the district, water for any purpose useful to the district (Section 5.5).
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 30
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
The District provides integrated services related to water management, including water wholesaling, flood
control, groundwater management, and watershed stewardship. No other agencies were identified that
could provide these services on a county-wide basis. No other government structure options were noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The SCVWD is governed by a seven-member Board of Directors; five directors are elected by geographic
areas which coincide with the County’s supervisorial districts and two at-large directors are appointed by
the County Board of Supervisors. The Directors serve staggered four-year terms. In the March 2004
election, three incumbents ran uncontested. The current board of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is
as follows:
Board Member Title Term of Office Compensation*
Rosemary Kamei Director – District 1 01/07 See below
Joe Judge Director – District 2 01/09 See below
Richard Santos Chair – District 3 01/09 See below
Larry Wilson Director – District 4 01/07 See below
Gregory Zlotnick Chair – District 5 01/09 See below
Tony Estremera Director – At Large / North 01/06 See below
Sig Sanchez Director – At Large / South 01/09 See below
*Compensation: Directors receive meeting fees of $214.41 per meeting up to ten meetings per month in
accordance with District Ordinance 04.02 pursuant to Chapter 2, Division 10 of the California Water
Code. Directors receive actual and necessary expense reimbursement in accordance with Board
Governance Process Policy GP-10 Cost of Governance. In addition, Directors receive $2,500 per
Director per year for annual and necessary expenses in accordance with District Ordinance 73-4,
Resolution No. 02-44.
The Board meets the on first and third Tuesday of each month at 9:30 AM and on fifth Tuesdays if
necessary. The District provides public notice of meetings to those requesting notification. The meetings
are also noticed in front of the District’s HQ building in accordance with the Brown Act. The full
meeting agenda along with backup documentation are available on line on the District’s website
(www.valleywater.org).
The District provides a substantial amount of public information on its website regarding the services
provided by the District, including water conservation and groundwater protection. The District’s
financial reports are available as well.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 31
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
To provide a framework and direction for District activities, the Board of Directors has formally adopted
board governance policies which address the governance process; the Board’s linkage to the public, Chief
Executive Officer and the District’s General Counsel; and the goals of the District.
As an additional measure of local accountability, the District has established board advisory committees
that assist in developing policies to guide District operations. The committees are as follows:
• Water Commission: assists the Board in formulating policy regarding the municipal and
industrial water program
• Agricultural Water Advisory Committee: assists the Board in developing policy regarding
water supply for agricultural uses
• Environmental Advisory Committee: advises the Board on issues of environmental
restoration and enhancement
• Landscape Advisory Committee: advises the Board on issues regarding water use efficiency
in landscaping
• Five Flood Zone and Watershed Advisory Committees: make recommendations relative to
the District’s priorities and financing policies for flood protection improvements within the
following zones – Lower Peninsula, West Valley, Guadalupe, Coyote and Uvas/Llagas
The Water Commission has 32 members representing each of the municipalities as well as the County
Board of Supervisors. Meetings are held quarterly in January, April, July and October. Meeting agendas
and minutes are posted on the District’s website.
The District has an Independent Monitoring Committee for the Clean, Safe Creeks & Natural Flood
Protection special tax approved by the voters in November 2000. The committee is comprised of citizen
volunteers and an independent oversight report is prepared by the committee annually.
The SCVWD Water Retailers Group provides a means for communication, coordination and input on
District programs. As part of this review process, several retailers expressed concern that the District’s
accountability to the water agencies was somewhat less than expected given the scope and scale of the
District’s operations and its critical role in Santa Clara County. Specific examples included increases in
personnel costs such as staffing levels, salaries and pensions to a degree that significantly exceeded that
of other public agencies at the time. In addition, there was a perception that the District was aggressively
approving new capital projects without a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The primary concern was the
resulting effect on the District’s water rates. These changes were implemented during a period when the
District was imposing rate increases and there was no specific mechanism for retailer oversight. Many of
the retailers are participating in a finance subcommittee of the Water Retailers group in order to provide
input to the District, and the District has sought retailer input on priorities with respect to District
programs and projects in relation to potential rate increases. It was suggested that a process for retailer
oversight of the District, perhaps based on the model used by the Clean, Safe Creeks & Natural Flood
Protection program, would provide the level of information needed by the retail agencies to understand
District decisions and ensure that there are no misperceptions regarding District accountability.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 32
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s service area encompasses the entire area of Santa Clara County.
Population within the County is expected to reach 2,267,100 by 2030, with an average annual growth rate
of 1.2%.
Projected growth rates vary by region; the highest rate of growth is projected in the North County for the
cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara. The District has factored the County’s growth patterns into
their long range plans.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Santa Clara Valley Water District receives water supply from a combination of sources including
imported, ground, and local surface water. Imported water from the State Water Project is delivered
through the South Bay Aqueduct and Federal Central Valley Project water is delivered through the San
Felipe Project.
Per its enabling act, the District is responsible for the comprehensive management of the water resources
within Santa Clara County. To fulfill this requirement, the District has taken a prominent role in
providing watershed stewardship programs and services for over 700 miles of streams within Santa Clara
County.
The District completed an Integrated Water Resources Planning process in FY 2003-2004 and is
implementing the strategies for developing water supplies, including water banking, water conservation,
and groundwater recharge. Per the District’s 2001 Urban Water Management Plan, water supply in year
2020 will be adequate to meet demand provided the water resources are developed as planned.
The District is the designated groundwater management agency for Santa Clara County. A Groundwater
Management Plan was prepared in 2001 to guide planning and operations for groundwater recharge and
water quality protection.
The District is providing leadership in the Perchlorate Working Group to address the groundwater
contamination issue in South County.
The District has a comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan that uses a 10-year planning horizon for
water system infrastructure.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The SCVWD accounts for its operations with the use of governmental and proprietary funds. The water
utility is operated as an enterprise activity.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 33
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
The District uses long term debt, such as revenue bonds, certificates of participation, and commercial
paper to finance major projects. At June 30, 2004, the District had $294 million in long term debt.
The District’s expected contribution to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund is approximately
$51 million for FY 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The District has eliminated the requirement for operating
reserves as a result and is in the process of evaluating other options in order to maintain essential service
levels to the greatest extent possible.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The SCVWD is avoiding costs where feasible in order to maintain essential services and project
implementation schedules to the greatest extent possible. This includes eliminating 90 vacant positions,
10% of the permanent work force.
The District has been able to reduce debt financing costs by $6.2 million through re-prioritizing and
delaying some capital projects.
Reducing demand for potable water is an effective means to avoid future costs. The District has a
comprehensive water conservation program and actively supports the use of recycled water. The District
provides an incentive of $115 per acre foot to North County agencies for the development of recycled
water supplies in order to offset potable demand.
5) Management Efficiencies
The SCVWD is achieving management efficiencies through its organization, operational programs and
planning documents. The District has reorganized operations into two core service areas: Water Utility
Enterprise and Watersheds. Its Watershed Operations and Capital Programs Division are ISO 9001:2000
certified. Watershed Operations is also ISO 14001 certified.
The District uses performance measurements to evaluate the achievements and performance of each
organizational component. Annual targets are set and progress is tracked quarterly.
6) Shared Facilities
The SCVWD shares facilities with a number of agencies related to water supply, water management, and
water use efficiency, including the District’s water retailers and the US Bureau of Reclamation.
The District recently completed a 40 million gallon treated water intertie with the SFPUC system that
improves reliability in the North County.
The District has a contract to operate some US Bureau of Reclamation Facilities related to the San Felipe
project.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 34
Special Districts: Santa Clara Valley Water District
The District is providing leadership in the Perchlorate Working Group in order to seek mitigation and
restitution for groundwater contamination in South County.
The District has partnered with the South County Regional Wastewater Authority and the Cities of Gilroy
and Morgan Hill to expand water recycling in South County. The District is the recycled water wholesaler
in South County and owns and maintains recycled water infrastructure that provides system reliability for
recycled water deliveries.
The District provides a comprehensive water conservation program county-wide in cooperation with its
retailers.
7) Rate Restructuring
The District annually reviews its rate structure based on expected costs. Input is obtained from the water
retailers group regarding project priorities. Each spring, the District holds a public hearing on multiple
dates to receive comments from citizens and interest groups on the water rates proposed for the next fiscal
year.
The District increased rates 8% in North County and 25% in South County for 2004-2005.
8) Government Structure Options
The SCVWD was established by an act of the state legislature and is authorized to provide comprehensive
water management services, including water wholesaling, groundwater management and flood control,
throughout the County. No other government structure options were noted.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The SCVWD is governed by a seven-member Board of Directors. The District maintains a website which
contains comprehensive information regarding District operations, water supply in the County, and
watershed programs. The District provides public notice of meetings and posts agendas and minutes
online.
The District’s Clean, Safe Creeks & Natural Flood Protection special tax approved by voters in November
2000 includes provisions for an independent oversight committee comprised of community volunteers.
An annual report is prepared by the committee which includes an evaluation of performance, actions,
costs and project status for those programs funded by the special tax.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 35
Special Districts: Aldercroft Heights County Water District
B. ALDERCROFT HEIGHTS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Overview
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District is an independent special district established in 1958 under
the County Water District Law (California Water Code §30000 et seq.). The District serves 119
residences within a 2.5 square mile service area on the western edge of Santa Clara County in the vicinity
of the Lexington Reservoir. The District relies on local surface water for its supply. It pumps water
directly from Los Gatos Creek under an agreement with the San Jose Water Company (SJWC) which
holds the water rights.
1. Growth and Population
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District serves a population of approximately 190 residents. The
District’s service area is entirely residential, located in a rural, unincorporated area within the Santa Cruz
Mountains. This area is within the Los Gatos Watershed Area as described in the County’s General Plan.
The topography is almost entirely hillsides and the steepness naturally limits the number of parcels that
are developable. The District currently provides service to 119 residential connections.
The population within the District’s service area is stable and little or no growth is projected. The District
estimated that there may only be three developable parcels remaining within the District’s boundary and
they may only add five new connections over the next twenty years.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District’s water system includes the following facilities:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 3.6 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 4
Total Water Storage Volume 0.37 MG
Pump Stations 2
Wells 0
Total Well Pumping Capacity N/A
Pressure Zones 3
The District has one filter plant which was built in 1992 to treat surface water pumped from the creek.
The system is primarily gravity fed. Pump stations are located on Los Gatos Creek and Aldercroft
Heights Road to pump treated water into the storage tanks.
The District does not have a Water Master Plan or Capital Improvements Plan; however they are
implementing the recommendations of a licensed engineer to improve the reliability of the system during
fire conditions. The District spent $71,380 on capital improvements over the past three fiscal years,
including projects to improve system pressure for fire flow. They are also in the process of replacing the
main storage tank; this should be completed in the fall of 2005.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 36
Special Districts: Aldercroft Heights County Water District
Water Demand
Water demand within the District is highly seasonal and can range from 16,000 gallons-per-day during
wet periods to 30,000 gallons-per-day in the summer. The following table lists existing and build-out
water demands during summer:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand 28-30,000 gallons-per-day
Existing Maximum Day Demand 30,000 gallons-per-day
Existing Peak Hour Demand 12-15 gallons-per-minute
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) 28-30,000 gallons-per-day
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand 30,000 gallons-per-day
The District’s service area is entirely residential, although some property owners have micro-vineyards
and other large landscape areas on their properties. The system’s peak demand capacity is 48,000
gallons-per-day, or 160% of peak demand. The District does not have a water conservation program.
Water Supply
The District’s source of supply is local surface water pumped directly from Los Gatos Creek under an
agreement with the San Jose Water Company which holds pre-1914 water rights to the creek. The
District does not have a contract with the SJWC, but purchases what is needed to meet demand. (The
District’s demand does not exceed available supply, even in the warmer months.)
Water supply purchases were consistent over the past three years.
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume Total
(Contractual)
San Jose Water Company 6,956 CCF NA 100%
Total 6,956 CCF NA 100%
The District has no wells. Emergency backup supply is provided by above-ground water storage tanks.
Recycled water is not available within the District’s service area.
Water Storage
The District has four storage facilities with a combined capacity of 370,000 gallons. They are in the
process of replacing the primary reservoir in the system, a 100,000 gallon steel tank. This tank is located
at a higher elevation and fills the other two reservoirs by gravity flow.
The District’s current storage capacity is equal to 12.3 days of maximum day demand, which is
considered more than adequate.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 37
Special Districts: Aldercroft Heights County Water District
Summary
Aldercroft Heights relies on local surface water pumped from Los Gatos Creek for its domestic water
supply. Storage capacity is adequate to meet 12.3 days of maximum day demand. Based on the
recommendations of an engineer, the District has undertaken capital improvement projects for its system
within the past few years. These include improving system reliability and pressure during fire conditions.
The District is in the process of replacing its main storage facility. The District lacks a master plan or
capital improvements program; however given the size of the District, the level of effort required to
develop the plans might not be cost-effective. Overall, the Aldercroft Heights system is reliable; it is
vulnerable to impacts from earthquakes or hillside movement but the District regularly monitors and
maintains its distribution lines to ensure minimal water loss.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District’s primary source of revenue is water sales; it does receive a
small increment of property taxes from its portion of the 1% property tax as well as some interest income.
The following table summarizes the District’s financial performance in FY 2002-2003.
Aldercroft Heights County Water District – FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales NP
Interest Income NP
Other Revenue (Property Taxes) NP
Total $165,326 100%
Expenses - Water Purchases * NP
Transmission/Distribution NP
Customer Accounts NP
Admin/Management/General NP
Total $116,457 100%
Reserves $108,000 65% of revenue
NP – not provided
The District was formed prior to the passage of Proposition 13. When it was created it received a
dedicated share of property tax revenues from the properties within its boundaries. Subsequent to the
passage of Proposition 13, the District now receives a dedicated share of the 1% property tax. This
revenue source is factored into the budget each year. In FY 2001-2002, property taxes comprised 3% of
total District revenue.
The State’s budget act of 2004 significantly changed how local revenues are allocated. Special districts
within California are required to contribute an aggregate of $350 million in both FY 2004-2005 and 2005-
2006 to their respective county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. The County Auditor-
Controller will reduce the District’s annual tax increment by the required contribution amount. For
Aldercroft Heights, this amount is estimated to be $4,672 for FY 2004-2005. This is not a significant loss
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 38
Special Districts: Aldercroft Heights County Water District
in revenue, and the District appears to have sufficient reserves to cover it. Proposition 1a, approved by
voters in November 2004, establishes protections so that special districts will not be subject to revenue
shifts in the future.
Aldercroft Heights reported revenues exceeding expenditures for each of the three years reported on the
questionnaire. The District had $91,000 in its Capital Reserve Fund and $17,000 in other reserves at the
end of FY 2002-2003. The capital reserves will be used to partially finance the new storage facility
mentioned above. The District does not currently have any long-term debt, but they may need to finance
a portion of the tank replacement project. An audit was completed in July 2003 and the results were not
qualified.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The District is avoiding personnel costs by operating with independent contractors rather than paid staff.
The District is in the process of replacing its main storage tank, avoiding the costs of costly repairs or
improvements in the future. The system is regularly monitored and any maintenance issues are addressed
in a timely manner to avoid more extensive repairs in the future.
5. Management Efficiencies
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District is currently managed by independent contractors serving as
the business manager and water manager. The water manager is experienced in operating public water
systems. This provides greater efficiencies to the District as it does not require full-time management
with the limited number of connections.
6. Shared Facilities
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District is geographically isolated from other water agencies and
opportunities to share facilities are limited.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District purchases water under the rate structure for untreated
water. The San Jose Water Company is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
and any rate changes must be approved by the CPUC. Aldercroft Heights is currently paying a rate of
$1.11820 per CCF plus a $46 monthly meter charge. This rate was recently adjusted as the District had
been paying treated water rates in the past.
Demand Rates
Aldercroft Heights charges a base rate of $83 for the first 4 CCF. Seniors and the disabled are charged a
discounted rate of $63. Rates were increased $10 in 2002 for both types of accounts. Additional water is
charged at $11 per CCF or $8.25 for seniors and the disabled. The District does not charge a meter
charge.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 39
Special Districts: Aldercroft Heights County Water District
For comparison to other water agencies, a typical demand of 20 CCF has been used throughout this
report. Using 20 CCF and a ¾” meter, the monthly bill for a customer of Aldercroft Heights would be
$259. It should be noted that this is a much higher demand level than typical for District customers.
The District is not anticipating another rate increase in the foreseeable future.
8. Government Structure Options
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District is currently serving the area within its boundaries. The
District’s boundary and Sphere of Influence are coterminous. No other public agencies were identified
that could provide water service to the area, and no other government structure options were identified.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The District is governed by a five member Board of Directors; two of the directors were elected
unopposed and three were appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The board members serve
four- or two-year terms. The current board of the Aldercroft Heights County Water District is as follows:
Board Member Title Term of Office Compensation
Deirdre Cernuska Board Chair 2007 none
none
Melissa Zender Board Member 2007
none
Victoria Pearce Board Member 2007
none
Kim Huebner Board Member 2005
none
Tracy Avent Board Member 2005
The Board meets the first Thursday of each month at 6:30 PM. Meeting agendas are posted in two places
within the District at least 72 hours prior to a meeting. New board members are not provided with an
orientation, and the District does not conduct regular reviews of the Brown Act or the Fair Political
Practices Commission. It does review public disclosure requirements.
The District’s latest Water Quality Report was prepared in April, 2003. There were no violations to
report.
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District currently serves a population of 190. The population
within the service area is stable and little or no growth is expected.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 40
Special Districts: Aldercroft Heights County Water District
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District relies entirely on local surface water pumped from Los
Gatos Creek under an agreement with the San Jose Water Company. The SJWC holds pre-1914 water
rights to the creek.
The District maintains water storage reservoirs with capacity for 12.3 days at maximum day demand. The
storage tanks also compensate for daily peaking and emergencies.
The District has undertaken some capital improvement projects in the past few years to improve system
pressure and reliability for fire fighting as well as storage tank replacement.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District’s revenues are sufficient to cover operating costs and
provide for an adequate level of reserves.
The District uses a “pay as you go” approach, financing the majority of infrastructure projects out of
reserves. The District currently has no long-term debt.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The District is avoiding costs through the use of independent contractors to manage the District’s
operations and system.
The District does not have a water conservation program.
5) Management Efficiencies
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District is managed by a business manager and a water manager,
(both independent contractors), under the direction and oversight of the District’s Board of Directors.
6) Shared Facilities
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District is geographically isolated and there are limited
opportunities to share facilities.
7) Rate Restructuring
The District uses a two-tiered rate structure. Water rates were last increased in 2002.
8) Government Structure Options
The District is providing water service in an unincorporated area in the Santa Cruz Mountains. No other
public agency was identified which could provide water service to the area. No other government
structure options were noted.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 41
Special Districts: Aldercroft Heights County Water District
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The Aldercroft Heights County Water District has a process for ensuring local accountability and
governance. Directors are elected or appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The Board meets
regularly and agendas are posted in two locations.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 42
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
C. PURISSIMA HILLS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Overview
The Purissima Hills County Water District is an independent special district established in 1955 under the
County Water District Law (California Water Code §30000 et seq.) to provide water service in the
northern portion of Santa Clara County. Its service area is comprised of approximately two-thirds of the
Town of Los Altos Hills and unincorporated area to the south. The California Water Service Company
(Cal Water) serves the remaining eastern and southeastern portions of the Town. The District provides
water to approximately 6,600 residents within a service area of 13.4 square miles. Its only source of
supply is treated surface water delivered through the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy Water System.
1. Growth and Population
The Purissima Hills County Water District estimated that it serves a population of approximately 6,600
residents. The District’s service area is predominantly residential, characterized by estate homes on
minimum one-acre lots. The General Plan for the Town of Los Altos Hills includes two residential
intensities: very low to low, and low to medium. For the entire town (including the Town’s sphere of
influence), the resident population at build-out is projected to be 14,100. Water demand is higher than
typically found in districts of a similar size, primarily due to the size of the homes and landscaped area.
According to a draft Water Supply Master Plan currently under development, the District is projecting a
population of 6,731 in 2033 and an increase in water demand at a rate of 2% per year over the next 10
years. ABAG’s estimated population within the District was 6,032 for 2000, with a projected annual
growth rate of 0.37%. Most of the growth will likely occur due to large parcel splits and new
construction as a result of increasing property values.
The District currently provides service to the following connection types:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 2,033 95%
Non-Residential/Industrial 96 5%
Total 2,129 100%
Changes in growth and population, and the related increase in water demands, are expected to be
primarily residential.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 43
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Purissima Hills County Water District’s water system is comprised of the following components:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 101 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 11
Total Water Storage Volume 10 MGD
Pump Stations 4
Wells 0
Total Well Pumping Capacity N/A
Pressure Zones 4
The District expanded its service area by taking over 5 to 6 smaller mutual water companies within Los
Altos Hills back in the 1970’s. Some of its current infrastructure was originally owned by the mutuals
and was incorporated into the system at the time of acquisition.
There is an existing intertie between Purissima Hills and the California Water Service Company (Cal
Water) that has the capacity to transfer approximately 1,000 gallons per minute. The water primarily
flows to CalWater. However, the connection could benefit Purissima Hills in the case of an extreme
water shortage if water pressures were significantly reduced by closing certain valves to isolate the
normal hydraulic gradeline. The District has a temporary intertie with the City of Palo Alto and two
turnouts from SFPUC. Even with these interties, the District’s ability to provide service would be limited
if service from SFPUC were interrupted for any lengthy period of time. This is a potential infrastructure
deficiency. The District is in the process of developing permanent interties with the City of Palo Alto and
Cal Water.
The District’s infrastructure is reaching its design life expectancy and the District has been following a
gradual program of evaluation and replacement of aging pipelines. The District has identified several
capital improvement projects to be completed over the next five years. Included are pipeline evaluations
and replacements, upgrades within Zone 2½, an intertie with CalWater, a new District Office, a Zone 3
intertie, replacement of the Altamont Tank, and a new high pressure pump at Deer Creek. Specifics to the
needs assessment that was used to determine the CIP were unavailable, but the overall list of projects
addresses improvements to pipeline reliability, water storage, and redundancy with the addition of two
interties.
The District participated in a joint effort with the Los Altos County Fire District to upgrade fire hydrants
within the water service area. The upgrades were needed to improve system reliability, fire flows and
circulation. The Fire District’s budget for FY 2003-2004 included $330,000 for this project.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 44
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
Water Demands
The following table lists existing and build-out water demands:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand (2003) 2.19 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand (2003/4) 4.0 MGD
Existing Peak Hour Demand NP
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) NP
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand NP
NP – not provided
In FY 2002-2003, residential customers accounted for 95% of the service connections and 90% of the
total water demand. Based on a maximum day demand of 4 MGD, the average demand per connection
would be 1,878 gallons. Generally, the typical average day demand for residential customers is around
500 gallons per day. Therefore, even considering the maximum day, water demand in this District is
significantly higher than typical primarily due to the size of the homes and landscape irrigation
requirements.
Water Supply
The District relies solely on imported water from SFPUC. All water is pre-treated by SFPUC as there are
no water treatment facilities within the District. Four pump stations are used to move water to higher
zones within the service area.
The District is currently exceeding its contractual allotment with SFPUC, although this has not been an
issue since other agencies have not taken their full contractual amount and the supply is available.
BAWSCA will be negotiating a new contract with SFPUC on behalf of all of the SFPUC wholesalers
which will take effect in 2009. It is expected that the District’s proportional share will be increased to a
level sufficient for future demand. The following table lists current and contractual water supply:
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume Total
(Contractual)
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2.19 MGD 1.62 MGD 100%
Total 2.19 MGD 1.62 MGD 100%
Groundwater is not used by the District, and the District has no existing wells. The District has performed
extensive research to develop a well both inside and adjacent to the District and ultimately drilled two test
holes based on the best potential of this research. Results of these test holes have indicated poor water
quality and quantity. The District is no longer pursuing a well as a supply alternative. Emergency backup
supply is provided by above-ground water storage tanks.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 45
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
Recycled water is not available within the District’s service area. It is generally used for commercial and
institutional landscapes and industrial processes. The cost would be prohibitive to provide recycled water
to the small number of potential customers within the District’s service area.
Water Storage
The District has recognized the need for additional storage facilities and capacity. Altamont Tank #1 is in
very good condition. It has been seismically upgraded, does not leak and requires very little maintenance.
The Altamont Tank site is logistically central but the 450,000 gallon storage is undersized relative to the
population demand. Building an optimally sized tank to meet the demand requirements is problematic
due to site restrictions. All of the tanks acquired with the mutuals were demolished due to condition and
hydraulic gradeline.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The Purissima Hills County Water District’s primary source of revenue is water sales and user fees. The
following table summarizes the District’s financial performance in FY 2003-2004.
Purissima Hills County Water District – FY 2003-2004 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales $3,251,606 86%
Inspection/Install Fees $37,417 1%
Other Revenue (Property Taxes) $505,655 13%
Total $3,794,678 100%
Expenses - Water Purchases * $1,276,848 45%
Pumping Power/Treatment $311,401 11%
Maintenance $632,527 22%
Admin/Management/General $614,751 22%
Total $2,826,527 100%
Reserves $2,197,9010 58% of Revenue
* Purchases from SFPUC
The District was formed prior to the passage of Proposition 13. When it was created it received a
dedicated share of property tax revenues from the properties within its boundaries. Subsequent to the
passage of Proposition 13, the District now receives a dedicated share of the 1% property tax. This
revenue source is factored into the budget each year. In FY 2001-2002, property taxes comprised 12% of
total District revenue.
The State’s budget act of 2004 significantly changed how local revenues are allocated. Special districts
within California are required to contribute an aggregate of $350 million in both FY 2004-2005 and 2005-
2006 to their respective county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. The County Auditor-
Controller will reduce the District’s annual tax increment by the required contribution amount. For
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 46
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
Purissima Hills, this amount is estimated to be $312,981 for FY 2004-2005. This is a significant loss in
revenue; however, the District has sufficient revenues to cover this impact. Proposition 1a, approved by
voters in November 2004, establishes protections so that special districts will not be subject to such
significant revenue shifts in the future.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The District is actively utilizing cost avoidance and cost savings opportunities for various aspects of the
water delivery process. The District is using an updated system-wide hydraulic model to identify
alternatives in order to solve problems in low pressure areas and optimize the water delivery system. It
has recently upgraded its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to allow
monitoring of critical facility data including tank water elevations and pump stations. The District is also
in the process of creating a Geographic Information System (GIS) database of existing facilities. The
combination of GIS, hydraulic model and SCADA provides the District with the tools to effectively
manage operations and information storage. Through planning and management, the District is able to
act on cost avoidance opportunities when identified.
5. Management Efficiencies
The Purissima Hills County Water District operates with the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 1
Operational 5
Professional/Support 2
Total 8
In the past 12 months, the District has received 21 complaints, primarily due to high turbidity (cloudy
water) and water leaks.
As mentioned above, the District is achieving management efficiencies through its master planning
process and the use of technology.
6. Shared Facilities
The Purissima Hills County Water District shares facilities with other agencies as appropriate. It has a
temporary intertie with Palo Alto and is investigating permanent interties with Palo Alto and Cal Water.
As noted earlier, the District participated in a joint effort with the Los Altos County Fire District to
upgrade fire hydrants in the service area.
Purissima Hills is a member of BAWSCA, utilizing the structure and functions of that agency to represent
the District’s interests with the SFPUC.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 47
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The District is subject to rate changes instituted by SFPUC. SFPUC increased wholesale rates 25% in
2003 and is expected to increase rates by another 47% by 2006. The District’s current cost for treated
water is $492.23 per acre foot. The District’s ongoing participation in BAWSCA is critical to the
management of these cost increases and the contract with SFPUC.
Rates are expected to continue to increase significantly over time, and cost increases will be reflected in
the rates charged to the District’s customers. However, due to the economic profile of the District’s
service area, increasing water rates are not considered a significant issue.
Demand Rates
The District’s current rate structure has five tiers. The District's average monthly usage varies widely
between summer and winter. The average in summer months is 62 CCF and only 15 CCF in winter.
Based on the overall average residential monthly demand for peak demand of 4 MGD, or approximately
1,800 gallons per day (73 CCF), the monthly bill would calculate as follows:
10 CCF @ $1.95 = $19.50
20 CCF @ $ 2.15= $49.00
30 CCF @ $ 2.95= $88.50
13 CCF @ $3.55 = $46.15
¾” meter = $13.50
Total Charge $216.65
For comparison to other water agencies, a typical demand of 20 CCF has been used throughout this
report. Using 20 CCF and a ¾” meter, the monthly bill would be $54.50.
The District conducted a formal rate study in 2004 to analyze the current rate structure in relation to
expected cost increases. The study recommends increasing the overall monthly rates between 3% and
12% over the existing five tiers. For the highest water users, a sixth tier was recommended increasing the
billed unit rate by 20% for customers using over 200 CCF per month. The increased rates are expected to
compensate for the increasing wholesale water rates and projected cost of CIP projects required in the
future. They are also intended to encourage water conservation for the highest water users within the
District.
8. Government Structure Options
The Purissima Hills County Water District’s Sphere of Influence and Boundary are coterminous.
However, there are two parcels currently being service outside the District boundary. These are
specifically identified in the LAFCo staff report regarding the map for the District (December 7, 2004).
LAFCo discourages special districts from providing services outside of their boundaries. LAFCo may
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 48
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
consider the option to annex these properties into the District to ensure that the service area boundaries
are coterminous with the District’s adopted boundaries.
Government structure options are limited for the Purissima Hills County Water District. There is strong
community support for having a small, locally controlled water District provide service to the area. In the
mid 1990’s, Cal Water expressed interest in acquiring the District. This change was not supported by the
residents and no further discussions have been held regarding the issue.
The District relies solely on imported water provided by SFPUC for its supply. In general, most public
water systems are expected to have two sources of supply. Currently the District has only one permanent
emergency intertie with Cal Water and one temporary intertie with Palo Alto that could assist the District
in the event of an extreme water shortage. Although the District has adequate storage, there is a concern
regarding the reliability of SFPUC supply in the event of a natural or manmade disaster. If the SFPUC
supply were interrupted for any extended period of time, the District’s ability to provide service would be
limited. Alternative water supply sources would be costly to implement.
The District serves both incorporated area within the Town of Los Altos Hills and unincorporated area in
the County. No other public agency was identified that could provide service to the entire service area.
Two government structure options were identified:
1. Maintain the status quo
This option would allow the District to continue its operations with no changes to its boundaries. The
current areas served outside District boundaries could be covered by out-of-agency agreements. The
District is providing adequate services, has the support of the community and no significant problems
have been identified. The disadvantage is that it does not address the service being provided outside the
District’s boundary.
2. Annex the two parcels currently receiving service to the District
This option would expand the District’s boundary to include the two parcels currently receiving service
outside the District. The advantage to this option is that it would clean up the District boundary. No
disadvantages were noted as the parcels are already receiving service and the District has the
infrastructure and water supply to serve them.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The District prepared and published their annual 2003 Water Quality Report in June 2004. No violations
were noted.
The Purissima Hills County Water District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors; Directors
are elected at large to serve staggered, four-year terms. In the November 2004 election, there were eight
candidates for three positions; two were incumbents. The current board of the Purissima Hills County
Water District is as follows:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 49
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
Board Member Title Term of Office Compensation
Ernest Solomon Director 12/08 NP
Daniel Seidel Director 12/08 NP
Bruno Ferrari Director 12/08 NP
Maurice Johnson Director 12/06 NP
Alex Vayntrub Director 12/06 NP
NP – not provided.
The Board meets the second Wednesday of each month at 6:30 PM. Meeting agendas are advertised in
two local newspapers and posted on the District’s office window five days before the date of the meeting.
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
The Purissima Hills County Water District currently serves a population of 6,600 and is projecting a
population of 6,731 in 2033. Increases in water demand are tied to both residential growth and concurrent
increases in landscaping needs of new estate homes.
The population within the service area is not expected to increase significantly over time. Growth will
occur primarily through the division of existing estate lots and new home construction.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Purissima Hills County Water District relies entirely on imported water from SFPUC for its supply.
It only has one permanent intertie with Cal Water and one temporary intertie with Palo Alto that could
serve the District in the event of an extreme water shortage. This is a potential infrastructure deficiency.
The District maintains eleven water storage reservoirs with capacity for 2.5 days at maximum day
demand. The storage tanks also compensate for daily peaking and emergencies.
The District’s infrastructure is reaching its design life expectancy and the District has been following a
gradual program of evaluation and replacement of aging pipelines. The District’s Capital Improvement
Plan includes the rehabilitation of two zones within the District and replacement of one water storage
tank.
The District is currently preparing an updated Water Supply Master Plan to identify infrastructure needs
and deficiencies.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The District has established a rate structure that is sufficient to cover operating costs and funding for CIP
projects.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 50
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
The District finances major infrastructure projects out of water revenues and reserves; it has no long-term
debt.
The District will be required to contribute the majority of its property tax revenue for FY 2004-2005 and
2005-2006 to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. District reserves are sufficient to cover this
reduction in revenue.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The District is avoiding costs through planning and the use of technology such as a GIS database,
hydraulic models, and a SCADA system.
Due to the economic profile of the District’s service area, demand levels are high and water conservation
is difficult to achieve; increased water rates do not necessarily curtail excessive water use.
5) Management Efficiencies
The District is in the process of updating its Water Supply Master Plan which will allow the District to
manage its service more efficiently.
The District operates with a small staff and has received few complaints over the past 12 months.
6) Shared Facilities
The Purissima Hills County Water District shares emergency intertie facilities with Cal Water and Palo
Alto. The District is a member of BAWSCA and uses the functions of that agency to represent its
interests with the SFPUC.
7) Rate Restructuring
The District uses a multi-tiered rate structure in an attempt to promote water conservation.
The District completed a rate study in 2004 that recommended increases ranging from 3 to 12% for each
of the tiers. Rates will be adjusted accordingly. A sixth-tier will be added for high water users.
8) Government Structure Options
The Purissima Hills County Water District serves both incorporated and incorporated area in the County.
Two government structure options were identified:
• Maintain the status quo: The District would continue to provide service within its current
boundaries.
– Advantage: The District is providing adequate service, has the support of the community, and no
significant problems were identified.
– Disadvantage: The option does not address the two parcels currently receiving service outside the
District’s boundary.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 51
Special Districts: Purissima Hills County Water District
• Annex the two parcels receiving service outside the District boundary: The District’s boundary
would be expanded to include the two parcels currently receiving service.
– Advantage: This allows for the District’s boundary to be cleaned up to reflect the area being
served.
– Disadvantage: No disadvantages were noted; the District is currently serving the two parcels and
has the infrastructure and supply to continue to serve them in the future.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The Purissima Hills County Water District has a process for ensuring local accountability and
governance. The elected board meets regularly and agendas are advertised in two local newspapers and
posted.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 52
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
D. SAN MARTIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Overview
The San Martin County Water District is an independent special district providing water service in the
unincorporated South County area of San Martin between Morgan Hill and Gilroy. The District serves
184 connections within a 0.71 square mile service area that is centered along San Martin Avenue east of
Monterey Road. The District was established in 1988 when the former private water company that served
the area entered into receivership. The District was formed under the County Water District Law
(California Water Code §30000 et seq.). Its sole source of supply is groundwater.
1. Growth and Population
The San Martin County Water District (SMCWD) currently serves a portion of the San Martin Planning
Area, east of Monterey Road and centered along San Martin Avenue. Land use within the District’s
boundaries is subject to the County’s growth and development policies relating to rural unincorporated
areas as well as those policies specific to the San Martin Planning Area. The District currently provides
service to the following connections:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential NP NP
Commercial NP NP
Institutional NP NP
Total 184 100%
NP – not provided
The San Martin County Water District adopted a resolution stating that it is the District’s goal to
eventually serve the entire San Martin Planning Area east of Monterey Road. The policies established for
the San Martin Planning Area include allowable residential densities using the County’s “5-20 acre
variable slope density formula.” Portions of the area are going through a process of gentrification
whereby larger homes are replacing the traditional smaller homes, which has slightly increased potable
demand.
The County’s General Plan Policy RD-6 states that urban types and levels of service shall not be available
from either public or private service providers outside of cities’ Urban Service Areas. Policy RD-7 states
that if there is an unpreventable area-wide problem which can only be solved by extension of services by
a special district, assessment district, or private utility, then that form of service may be approved with
certain restrictions, i.e. that the amount of increased service capacity will not exceed the identified need
and the planned level of development. The level of service capacity must also be consistent with that of
other services provided or planned in the area.
Although growth within the area will be limited per the County’s policies, demand for potable water
service will steadily increase for the foreseeable future. Groundwater quality in the area is seriously
impacted, both by nitrate levels due to septic systems and surrounding agricultural land use as well as by
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 53
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
perchlorate contamination from past manufacturing operations. The nitrate issue is primarily in the
outlying areas; the District’s main well regularly meets nitrate level standards for potable water and only
requires treatment for perchlorate.
Outside the District’s service area, the San Martin community is primarily served by West San Martin
Water Works (a private company) to the west of Monterey Road and private or shared wells, small water
systems or small mutual water companies in the rest of the area. The State Department of Health Services
closely monitors the water quality of those systems within its jurisdiction and has ordered the Cherry
Ranch Water Mutual Company in San Martin to disconnect its system due to nitrate levels. (The
neighboring system, Candy Ranch Mutual Water Company, does not fall under State regulation due to the
number of connections but has the same water quality conditions.) The SMCWD is contacted monthly by
well owners asking for water service; there are no other large retail providers on the east side of Monterey
Road that offer an alternative. Primarily from a public health standpoint, there will be a serious need for
expanded treated water facilities in the San Martin area in order to provide water service to those with
failed or at risk systems. Due to the extent and seriousness of the issue and physical requirements for the
treatment process, water treatment is more appropriately provided through a public water agency rather
than individual wells or small mutual water companies.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The San Martin County Water District provides potable water treatment and distribution within its service
area. The water system is comprised of the following:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines NP
Reservoirs (Tanks) NP
Total Water Storage Volume NP
Pump Stations NP
Wells NP
Total Well Pumping Capacity NP
Pressure Zones NP
NP – not provided
There are currently no un-served areas within the District's boundaries. All of the parcels have
connections to the system although some owners are currently not using the District’s water.
The District currently has one well and is planning to construct a new standby well in 2005. (The
previous standby well was closed due to nitrate contamination.) The primary well has a capacity of 2,000
gallons-per-minute (GPM), far exceeding the current regular service demand of 86 GPM. This excess
capacity was designed into the system to ensure adequate fire flow, even though the District is not
required to provide water for fire suppression since it only has potable supply. The District has agreed to
provide fire flow as there are no other providers in the area. The standby well will have an approximate
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 54
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
capacity of a few hundred gallons per minute, enough to serve the current potable needs of the District’s
service area in an emergency.
The District has not prepared a master plan and there are no projections on future total demand for the
San Martin Planning Area. The District stated that it has adequate supply and capacity to serve the
current potable water connections within the Planning Area.
The SMCWD’s primary well and new standby well are located on the property of Camping World (the
well was originally constructed by the firm as a condition of approval). The District’s treatment facility,
provided by the Olin Corporation, is adjacent. Olin was identified as the manufacturing operation that
created the perchlorate contamination issue. The facility treats for perchlorate (nitrate levels are not an
issue) and the treatment capacity matches the well production capacity.
It has not been determined how additional water treatment will be implemented for those not served by
the District. Olin is currently providing bottled water to residents in affected areas. The State
Department of Health is not in favor of Point-of-Use treatment systems as they require that a Certified
Water Treatment Operator manage each system and the regulatory oversight will become increasingly
cumbersome for the State to manage. If long term water treatment is to be provided through public water
systems rather than private wells, there will be greater demand for services from the SMCWD for the area
east of Monterey Road. Although treatment capacity may be adequate, the District’s delivery and storage
infrastructure would need to be expanded accordingly.
Within the past five years the District has made major improvements to its water system. A majority of
the service area has been re-piped and there are only two projects still to be completed. The District has
upgraded pipe sizes based on industry standards and projected future demand from the existing and
potential connections. To illustrate the progress made in the past few years, the San Martin village area
was served by a 2-inch main with no water service in the afternoon due to inadequate capacity and
pressure. Most of those lines have now been replaced with 8-inch mains so that service is reliable. The
western portion of the service area has a 12-inch main. Most of the future demand is expected to be in
proximity to existing or planned pipelines.
As part of the re-piping program, the District is installing fire hydrants every 500 feet in keeping with
County standards, and it plans to continue to install hydrants in the future along any new pipeline segment
that has active water connections. No formal analysis or study has been conducted on how water
deliveries would be temporarily impacted in the event of a major fire, although significant pumping
capacity is in place to ensure adequate pressure and flow. Olin has also paid for two booster pumps that
will maintain adequate pressure and flow in the event of a fire.
The SMCWD requires that owners of parcels which benefit from a service extension are required to pay
for the improvements, to the level required to adequately serve the new area. The District uses the
opportunity to upgrade pipe size where it is expected that future demand will require greater pipeline
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 55
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
capacity. The incremental cost increase for the larger pipe size is borne by the District. Some of the costs
are recouped as connections are added to each particular pipeline.
The District noted that it has also undertaken a program in the past five years to repair or replace meters
where the readings were consistently inaccurate.
The SMCWD currently relies on its main well for supply. In genera, public water systems are expected to
have two sources of supply. The District has an agreement with West San Martin Water Works, Inc. for
the company to provide water to the SMCWD in an emergency. An existing valve between the two
systems had been closed as a result of the lawsuit between the two purveyors, but relations have improved
and the company has agreed to assist if needed.
Water Storage
The District currently has one 5,000-gallon storage tank. The District recognizes the need for more
storage capacity in the future, and an elevated site that would offer gravity flow would greatly improve
service reliability. The service area is almost entirely flat and the current water delivery system is
pressure flow, making the District completely dependent on power service from PG&E for pumping.
(Each of the wells has its own generator.) The District has identified an elevated site within a park to the
east for a new one million gallon reservoir tank. All of the agencies which would have oversight
authority for this facility – County Health Services, Fire and Parks – are in support of the proposed plan.
The primary constraint is funding, and the District projects that this project may be five years away from
implementation.
Water Demands
The District provides potable water for a variety of uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial.
No agricultural water service is provided. The District does not have a water conservation program.
Demand within the District’s service area is as follows:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand NP
Existing Maximum Day Demand NP
Existing Peak Hour Demand NP
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) NP
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand NP
NP – not provided
Water Supply
The San Martin County Water District relies on groundwater extracted from the Llagas Sub-basin, which
is managed by the SCVWD. In Calendar Year 2003, the SMCWD extracted the following volume:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 56
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
Current Percent of
Supply
Volume Total
SCVWD – groundwater 137.02 AF 100%
Total 137.02 AF 100%
Per SCVWD records
The San Martin County Water District, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and West San Martin Water Works all share
the same groundwater basin. Because these agencies are all relying on the same source of supply, it is
essential that they coordinate, along with the County, on planning efforts and water supply related issues.
Groundwater quality is of critical concern, particularly with the use of septic systems in the San Martin
area and previous manufacturing land use in the South County region. Septic systems and agriculture are
known to increase nitrate levels in groundwater. If land use intensifies in the San Martin area, an
increased volume of wastewater could exacerbate the existing problem of high nitrate levels.
Perchlorate contamination from previous manufacturing operations further north has been identified in the
water produced from the SMCWD’s main well. The San Martin County Water District participates in the
Perchlorate Community Advisory Group, along with the SCVWD, elected officials and community
members. Community Advisory Groups are established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as
a means for the community to be involved in major water quality issues and have a voice before the
Board. The District is not involved in the Perchlorate Working Group as the District has reached an
agreement with Olin.
Recycled water is not available within the District’s service area, and there are no plans to extend this
service from the South County Water Recycling Authority treatment facility in Gilroy.
Summary
The San Martin County Water District serves an area with significant water service issues. The San
Martin relies on groundwater; however this source has been contaminated by both nitrates and perchlorate
and all water for domestic use must be treated. The District’s main well does not have nitrate issues but
does require treatment for perchlorate. The District’s water treatment facility has the capacity to match
the production of the District’s main and secondary wells. In the past the San Martin County Water
District’s infrastructure was substandard and unable to adequately serve the needs of the community.
However, in the past five years the system and service levels have significantly improved.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 57
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The following table summarizes the District’s financial performance in FY 2003-2004:
San Martin County Water District – FY 2003-2004 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales $143,441 98%
Interest Income $141 0%
Water Service Connection $3,000 2%
Total $146,582 100%
Expenses - Water Purchases* $22,708 24%
Transmission/Distribution $37,493 39%
Admin/Management/General $35,675 37%
Total $95,876 100%
Net Income $50,706
Reserves At year end $96,879
SCVWD pump tax
The District initially operated with little or no reserves. As part of the overall effort to improve the
District’s management and financial condition, the Board of Directors adopted a resolution to establish a
minimum reserve level of $50,000. As of February 2005, reserves are approximately $130,000.
There are two long-term debts associated with the District. The first was a loan from the California
Department of Water Resources in 1995 for $597,450. The proceeds of the loan along with State grant
funding were used to acquire the infrastructure and the main well as part of the District’s formation. The
30-year loan will be paid in full in 2025. Annual payments are approximately $16,000, including
principal and interest. The principal balance currently stands at $458,005. A benefit assessment district
was established at the time, and 186 parcels are assessed annually on the property tax bills. The County
collects the assessments and makes the annual payment to the State.
The second long-term debt was a loan from the County in 1999 to settle the lawsuit with West San Martin
Water Works and acquire the Ukested Water Supply. The 10-year loan will be paid in full in 2009. The
District borrowed $60,000; the current principal balance is $36,000. The District pays a fixed principal
amount every year ($6,000) with a variable interest rate. The District considered paying the loan off
early; however the County is charging a favorable interest rate of approximately 1% and the District
decided to continue with the loan for the time being.
In the future the District plans to finance improvements through reserves and grant funding using a “pay
as you go” approach. It is the District’s policy that the cost for service extensions are paid for by the
benefiting parcels. Any further new connections along that pipeline are charged a connection fee, and the
original parcels are entitled to recover a portion of their costs. This approach ensures that the funding is
in place prior to the District extending service, and it also ensures that the costs are borne by the
appropriate parties rather than all of the District’s customers.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 58
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The San Martin County Water District is aggressively avoiding costs where possible. The current size of
the District does not warrant full time staff; therefore the District is managed and operated by contract,
avoiding the costs associated with personnel. Based on industry standards, the District expects that
economies of scale will be realized when the District reaches 300 connections and it will be able to
support a fulltime staff member.
The District is avoiding the costs for future capacity upgrades by using pipelines sized to adequately serve
expected future demand in a given area. For example, if a new service extension only requires a 6-inch
pipe, the District may upgrade the size to 8-inches (based on future demand projections) to avoid future
capital improvements. In addition, the District requires the beneficiaries to pay the cost for any service
extension.
5. Management Efficiencies
The San Martin County Water District contracts for management services with a company that specializes
in managing public water systems. The management company has four staff, each with advanced
certifications for water system operations and treatment. One of the staff is directly responsible for the
San Martin system. This management approach is highly efficient for the District as the system size does
not warrant full time staff. The management company has significant experience in improving
substandard systems and dealing with water treatment for multiple contaminates.
6. Shared Facilities
The San Martin County Water District has had limited opportunities to share facilities in the past.
Opportunities may increase through collaborative water service planning with Morgan Hill, Gilroy, the
SCVWD, and West San Martin Water Works. The agencies providing water in the South County region
share common concerns for groundwater cleanup, long-term groundwater quality, growth and
development. At some point in the future imported water may be provided to the South County region,
and it will be important that all of the water purveyors are working collaboratively on managing the
region’s water supplies. The San Martin County Water District will be an important stakeholder in this
effort.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The groundwater pump tax rates imposed by the SCVWD are an ongoing concern for the San Martin
County Water District. The pump tax is paid to the SCVWD in exchange for groundwater recharge
services and is currently set at $200 per acre foot. The current rate includes a 25% increase over prior
year rates. Most retailers of the SCVWD are expecting the pump tax rate to continue to increase
significantly over time, which will result in rate increases for the end users. This will directly impact San
Martin’s retail rates as the San Martin County Water District has approved a rate structure that includes
automatic increases whenever the SCVWD imposes any fees or rate changes.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 59
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
Demand Rates
The San Martin County Water District has only increased rates once in ten years; the last rate increase
was in 2002. The current SCVWD tax component was updated July 1, 2004 when the pump tax rates
changed. The District has a two-tiered rate structure with the split at 5 units. A base rate is charged,
which covers meter reading and replacement, billing, collection, quality testing, administration and
distribution maintenance.
For comparison to other water agencies, a typical demand of 20 CCF has been used throughout this
report. Using 20 CCF and a ¾” meter, the monthly bill for a customer of the San Martin County Water
District would be as follows:
Charge SMCWD SCVWD Total
Rate Tax Rate
Base Rate $20.00
Tier 1 – 5 CCF $1.70/unit $0.46/unit 10.80
Tier 2 – 15 CCF $2.15/unit $0.46/unit 39.15
Total $69.95
8. Government Structure Options
The San Martin County Water District’s boundary is not coterminous with its Sphere of Influence. The
SMCWD is currently serving the area within its boundaries as well as nine parcels outside its boundaries
(three are for County facilities). These parcels are noted on the map following this section. LAFCo is
aware of these areas and will address them as part of the District’s sphere update.
There has been discussion in the recent past regarding incorporation of the San Martin area. The
proponents have indicated that they would utilize service from the existing water providers; however
LAFCo can approve, deny, modify or approve in part an incorporation proposal brought before it. To
date, a formal application for incorporation has not been filed with LAFCo.
The San Martin County Water District stated that it would like its service area and Sphere of Influence to
be expanded such that they would include all of the San Martin Planning Area east of Monterey Road.
The District does not want to piece-meal applications through LAFCO over the next several years but
would rather complete the process through one application. The District would like to have its boundaries
established such that it is able to respond quickly when a mutual water system has been ordered by a
regulatory agency to cease operations, or when water quality in private or shared wells is too far degraded
for further use. There is a major push by the State to merge small water systems, due to increasing
regulations and the sheer administrative cost and effort to monitor them. As this trend continues, there
will likely be increasingly more requests for service from the District. The District estimates that within
the San Martin Planning Area, there are approximately 15 water systems with five or more connections
and over 100 shared wells.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 60
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
It is important to note that there are a number of issues that would have to be evaluated when considering
a boundary change for the District. These include future demand and infrastructure capacity, growth
inducing impacts and other environmental issues.
The San Martin County Water District is working with the Cherry Ranch Mutual Water Company on
their request to connect their system, which serves 17 parcels, to the SMCWD system. As mentioned
earlier, this mutual has been ordered by the State to disconnect its system due to high nitrate levels. The
area is approximately one-mile from an existing District pipeline in Center Avenue. To demonstrate good
faith to the State and delay the start of penalties, the Cherry Ranch property owners have been collecting
assessments for the past year in order to pay for the pipeline. They are reaching the point where they are
ready to move forward. The District has informed the property owners that service extensions such as
this will require LAFCo approval. However, to date LAFCo has not been approached regarding this
issue.
Directly across the street from Cherry Ranch is another mutual, Candy Ranch, with five parcels. Due to
its size it is not regulated by the State and therefore has not received orders to disconnect. The per-
property cost of a pipeline extension would drop significantly if both mutuals were able to participate.
Existing SMCWD customers along the pipeline route would be offered the opportunity to connect, which
would lower the individual cost for each landowner. The District is working with the two mutuals, as well
as other property owners along the pipeline, to try to maximize the pipeline potential and reduce the costs.
Several government structure options were identified for the San Martin County Water District. (A study
area map depicting the District’s current boundary, out of agency service areas and the San Martin
Planning Area boundary follows.)
1. Maintain the status quo
This option would allow the District to continue its operations with no changes to its boundaries. The
current areas served outside District boundaries as well as the Cherry Ranch mutual could be covered by
out-of-agency agreements. The advantage to this option is continuity of service. The District is providing
adequate services, has the support of the community and no significant problems have been identified.
The disadvantage is that it does not address the issues at hand: 1) providing efficient, potable water
service to an area that has critical public health issues, and 2) providing water service outside District
boundaries without LAFCo approval. The San Martin area has dire water quality issues; the District has
excess water supply and system capacity and could serve a larger area. Maintaining the same
governmental structure would not alleviate any of the conditions in the San Martin area.
2. Dissolve the San Martin County Water District
The San Martin County Water District could be dissolved, allowing a larger mutual water company or
private water purveyor to serve the area. This would provide little if any benefit to the local residents,
other than to relieve them of responsibility for LAFCo approvals. The disadvantage is that currently there
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 61
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
is no other service provider in the area. Given the critical environmental conditions and the doubtful
prospects for incorporation of the San Martin area, it would be beneficial to have a public agency
providing leadership in the provision of water service to the San Martin area. A private purveyor would
be subject to the authority of the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates rates and sets
system standards. However, it is unlikely that a private company would accept the legal liability
associated with serving an area dependent on groundwater given the current groundwater contamination
issues.
3a. Annex the areas served by the current out-of-agency connections
This option would expand the boundaries of the San Martin County Water District to include the out-of-
agency areas currently being served. The advantage of this is that it would clean up service area
boundaries. The disadvantage is that it does not address the issue of providing efficient, potable water
service to a broader area that has critical public health issues. This option may only offer a short-term
solution given the ongoing water quality issues in the area and the State’s direction towards bringing
smaller privately-operated systems into larger public systems.
3b. Annex the Cherry Ranch and Candy Ranch Mutual Water Companies
This option would expand the boundaries of the San Martin County Water District to include the two
water mutuals located near the intersection of Middle and Center Avenues, approximately one mile from
an existing District pipeline. The advantage of this option is that it would solve a public health issue by
providing service to an area that has serious water quality issues and no other options for water service
other than on-site treatment. This would provide the opportunity for existing water users located along
the extension to connect to the system. The District would also be installing fire hydrants along Center
Avenue, providing public safety benefit. The disadvantage is that it does not address the larger water
quality issue present in the San Martin area.
4. Expand the District’s boundary to include the entire San Martin Planning Area east of Monterey
Road
This option has significant advantages, including economies of scale, service efficiency, and greater local
accountability to the residents of San Martin. The District has indicated that it has the water supply and
treatment/pumping capacity to serve the current needs of the area. (The District noted that it is only
interested in providing service to existing development and those properties along pipelines serving those
areas, not remote single parcels outside the Planning Area.) There are no other identified providers in the
area that could serve the San Martin area in a similar manner.
The disadvantage is that there is inadequate data to determine whether this option is appropriate at this
point in time. Potential issues that would need to be evaluated include projected water demand, water
system capacity and infrastructure needs; permits; growth inducement; and the impacts on existing land
uses. This would all have to be evaluated within the context of the County’s General Plan, the South
County Area Joint Plan and the San Martin Planning Area policies, and LAFCo policies. The District
requires that all costs for service extensions be borne by the benefiting parcels, so the financial impact to
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 62
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
the District’s existing customers would be limited with the exception of costs associated with District-
wide improvements such as storage facilities. No formal analysis or studies have been conducted to
determine the projected water demand for a public water system in the San Martin area over the next
twenty years; trends such as development, gentrification, and the discontinued use of privately owned
wells would need to be factored in. Although the District noted that it would only serve existing water
users, the potential for new connections in the vicinity of any current or planned District facilities must be
considered.
The San Martin County Water District’s sphere will be reviewed and updated by LAFCo in the near
future. In order to adequately complete this analysis in a timely manner, additional information from the
District will be required. The District’s willingness to participate in this process will provide evidence of
its long-term commitment to serving the San Martin community.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors; however two seats are currently vacant.
The current board of the San Martin County Water District is as follows:
Board Member Title Term of Office Compensation
Omar Hindiyeh President 2005 none
Don Popma Board Member 2005 none
Ray Souza Board Chair 2007 none
Vacant 2007
Vacant 2007
The Board meets the third Tuesday of each month at 5:30 PM. Meetings are held at the Aircraft Museum
at 12777 Murphy Avenue in San Martin. Meeting notices are distributed with each billing as well as
posted at the US Post Office and the payment drop-off box in a local store. Board members are required
to attend meetings for three months prior to being seated on the Board.
Although the San Martin County Water District has been dysfunctional in the past, it has improved its
operations and level of service significantly in the past five years. However, given the critical
groundwater issues and expected growth in the region, it will be important for this District to continue to
strengthen its financial resources and governance.
It is important that the Board of Directors fill the vacancies as soon as possible. This could be
accomplished through a request to the Board of Supervisors to appoint members in lieu of incurring
special election costs. The District noted that it is actively seeking new board members.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 63
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
Insert San Martin Planning Area / San Martin County Water District Map
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 64
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
The San Martin County Water District currently serves a portion of the San Martin Planning Area, east of
Monterey Road and centered along San Martin Avenue.
Growth within San Martin is expected to occur at a much slower rate than the incorporated areas within
the South County due to its rural designation and County policies.
The majority of the expected increase in demand for water services will be driven by water quality issues
and failed private or mutual water systems rather than population growth.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The San Martin County Water District relies on groundwater extracted from the Llagas Sub-basin for its
source of water supply.
Groundwater quality is a concern. A majority of the San Martin area is impacted by nitrate levels that
exceed allowable limits and by perchlorate contamination.
The District has a water treatment facility provided by the Olin Corporation to treat perchlorate
contamination. The District’s well does not have nitrate issues and treatment for nitrate levels is not
required.
The District has nearly completed a major re-piping project, bringing pipeline sizes up to industry
standards and establishing acceptable levels of service.
The District’s water supply and treatment capacity are adequate to serve the demands of the District’s
current service area.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The San Martin County Water District has established a minimum reserve level of $50,000. Operating
revenue has been sufficient to increase reserves annually for the past several years.
There are two outstanding long-term debts associated with infrastructure acquisition and improvements
for the formation of the District and purchase of the Ukested Water Supply as settlement for a lawsuit.
The District now uses a “pay as you go” approach, financing the majority of infrastructure projects out of
reserves and grant funding.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The District is avoiding costs through the use of independent contractors to manage and operate the
system.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 65
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
5) Management Efficiencies
The San Martin County Water District contracts for management services with a company that has
significant expertise in operating local water distribution and treatment systems. This has resulted in
measurable improvements in the District’s operations, rate structures, and financial condition.
6) Shared Facilities
The San Martin County Water District has had limited opportunities to share facilities. Opportunities
may increase through future collaboration of the public and private water providers in the South County.
7) Rate Restructuring
The District adopted a two-tiered rate structure in 2002 that includes an automatic rate adjustment based
on any fees or rate increases imposed by the SCVWD.
8) Government Structure Options
Several government structure options were identified for the San Martin County Water District:
• Maintain the status quo: The District would continue to provide service within its current
boundaries.
– Advantage: This option allows for continuity of service; no other public agency was identified
that could provide the same service levels as the District.
– Disadvantage: The option does not address the water quality and public health issues in the San
Martin area or the out-of-agency service that is currently being provided.
• Dissolve the San Martin County Water District: The District would be dissolved and its assets
would be acquired by a successor entity such as an investor-owned water company or mutual water
company
– Advantage: This option would provide minimal benefit other than to relieve the water purveyors
and residents from the responsibility of LAFCo approvals for additional service areas.
– Disadvantage: There is no other public agency service provider in the area that could maintain
the existing service levels; the San Martin area would have to be served by a privately owned
water purveyor or mutual water company.
• Annex the areas served by the current out-of-agency connections: The nine parcels outside the
District’s boundaries that are currently receiving service would be annexed to the District.
– Advantage: This option would clean up the District’s service area boundaries.
– Disadvantage: This option does not address the larger issue of water quality and public health in
the San Martin area. It may only provide a short-term solution given the ongoing water quality
issues and the State’s movement towards consolidating smaller, privately operated systems with
larger public water systems.
• Annex the Cherry Ranch and Candy Ranch Mutual Water Companies: The District’s
boundaries would be expanded to include the two water mutuals located near the intersection of
Middle and Center Avenues, approximately one mile from an existing District pipeline.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 66
Special Districts: San Martin County Water District
– Advantages: This option would resolve a serious public health issue and pending loss of water
service for the Cherry Ranch Mutual Water Company. The Candy Ranch Mutual Water
Company has similar water quality issues but has not been ordered to disconnect its system. This
would also provide public safety benefits through the installation of fire hydrants along the
pipeline reach in Center Avenue.
– Disadvantage: This option does not address the broader issue of water quality and public health
in the San Martin area. It provides a solution for the two water mutuals but not for the remainder
of the San Martin area.
• Expand the District’s boundaries to include the entire San Martin Planning Area east of
Monterey Road
– Advantages: This option could provide economies of scale, service efficiency, and greater local
accountability to the residents of San Martin. There are no other public agencies in the area that
could serve the San Martin area in a similar manner.
– Disadvantage: There may be unintended impacts as current data is inadequate to determine
whether this option is appropriate at this point in time. Further analysis would be needed to
evaluate projected water demand, water system capacity and infrastructure needs; permits; growth
inducement; and the impacts on existing land uses. All this would need to be considered within
the context of the County’s General Plan, the South County Area Joint Plan and the San Martin
Planning Area policies, and LAFCo policies.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The San Martin County Water District is governed by a locally elected Board of Directors. The Board
currently has two vacancies; these positions can be filled by special election or appointment by the
County Board of Supervisors.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 67
Special Districts: Pacheco Pass Water District
E. PACHECO PASS WATER DISTRICT
Overview
The Pacheco Pass Water District is an independent special district that lies within both Santa Clara and
San Benito Counties. Its primary purpose is to capture, store and release local surface water in order to
recharge the groundwater in the area. The District was established in 1931 under the California Water
District Law (California Water Code §34000 et seq.).
The Pacheco Pass Water District is a cross-county agency with 80% of the District located in San Benito
County. San Benito LAFCo is the principal LAFCo for determining the sphere of influence for the
District, and therefore Santa Clara LAFCo is not asked to adopt determinations for this District. Pacheco
Pass Water District is included in the report to ensure a comprehensive review of water service in Santa
Clara County.
1. Growth and Population
The Pacheco Pass Water District is located adjacent to Highway 156. Land use in the area is almost
entirely ranchland per the County’s General Plan. The District noted that San Benito County is rapidly
urbanizing, stemming from development pressure within Santa Clara County. The District’s function is
to provide the water supply for natural groundwater recharge through reservoir storage and release. The
District noted that it expects future growth to have no effect on demand from the District’s facilities.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The infrastructure of the Pacheco Pass Water District consists of two dams and their adjacent reservoirs.
The State Department of Water Resources inspects the dams two to three times per year. The Los
Viboroas Dam is in good condition and has the capacity to store 500 acre-feet of water. The North Fork
Dam was built in 1936 and has a capacity to store 6,000 acre-feet of water. Major repairs were completed
in mid-2004 related to valve replacement and improvements were also completed on the spillway.
The District does not have a Master Plan or Capital Improvement Plan. The State has informed the
District that the North Fork Dam will need an estimated $400,000 in repairs within the next five years.
The District did not provide specifics on what the repairs would entail.
The District noted that the SCVWD had approached them at one point regarding expanding the
reservoir’s capacity to 18,000 – 20,000 acre-feet. The Pacheco Pass Water District’s Board of Directors
was adamantly opposed, perhaps over concern that the District could lose its water rights and no longer
provide adequate recharge for San Benito County.
Water Supply
The District’s reservoirs are designed to collect and store local surface water from Pacheco Creek and
naturally occurring runoff.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 68
Special Districts: Pacheco Pass Water District
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The Pacheco Pass Water District’s primary source of revenue is property tax with a small increment of
interest. The following table summarizes the District’s financial performance in FY 2003-2004.
Pacheco Pass Water District – FY 2003-2004 Financial Summary
Revenue - Property Taxes $21,610 99%
Interest $1,618 1%
Total $23,228 100%
Expenses - Admin/Management/General NP
Capital Improvements NP
Total NP
Reserves 745% of Revenue
NP – not provided
The District was formed prior to the passage of Proposition 13. When it was created it received a
dedicated share of property tax revenues from the properties within its boundaries. Subsequent to the
passage of Proposition 13, the District now receives a dedicated share of the 1% property tax. This
revenue source is its only source of income except interest.
Per the State budget act of 2004, the Pacheco Pass Water District will be required to contribute to the
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund based on its property tax revenue. This amount is estimated to
be $2,433 for FY 2004-2005, approximately 10% of its total income using a base year of FY 2001-2002.
This is a significant loss in revenue; however, the District has sufficient revenues to cover this impact on
a short term basis.
The District noted that due to the State’s fiscal crisis, it has seen mandatory dam fees increase
dramatically. The District used to pay an annual fee of $2,300 to the State; that fee is now $10,080. They
are exploring grants and other financial opportunities, particularly in light of the estimated $400,000 in
dam repairs that will needed within the next five years.
The District maintains reserves for both operations and capital improvements. Operating reserves were
approximately $25,700 and capital reserves were $157,000 at the end of 2003. The District does not have
any long-term debt.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
No cost avoidance opportunities were noted.
5. Management Efficiencies
The Pacheco Pass Water District operates with the following staff:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 69
Special Districts: Pacheco Pass Water District
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative .5
Operational (Water Masters) 1.0
Total 1.5
The District has three part-time staff members. The District was audited by an independent auditor as of
June 30, 2003, and there results were not qualified in any way.
6. Shared Facilities
The Pacheco Pass Water District shares facilities with other agencies as appropriate. The District is
participating as a stakeholder in the SCVWD’s San Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project.
7. Rate Restructuring
The Pacheco Pass Water District does not purchase any water or charge any user fees.
8. Government Structure Options
The majority of the Pacheco Pass Water District is located in San Benito County, and San Benito LAFCo
is the principal LAFCo. The District noted that if any change were to be made, it would consider
reorganizing with the San Benito County Water District. The San Benito LAFCo would be the lead on
any change. Santa Clara LAFCo should be notified of any applications or pending changes that might
affect the area within its jurisdiction.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The Pacheco Pass Water District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors; Directors are elected
at large to serve staggered four-year terms. In the November 2004 election, only one incumbent ran for
re-election while the terms for three board members expired. The current board of the Pacheco Pass
Water District is as follows:
Board Member Title Term of Office Compensation
Sam Lomanto Director 2008 None
Allison Rohnert Director 2006 None
Louis Scaglione Director 2006 None
Elliott Swank Director 2008 None
Michael O’Connell Director 2008 None
The District does not have a regularly scheduled meeting time. The Board meets as needed. Meeting
agendas are posted in advance at the San Benito County courthouse.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 70
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
F. GUADALUPE-COYOTE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Overview
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District (RCD) provides a range of conservation and
watershed-related services to both rural and urban areas within the northern portion of Santa Clara
County. Although it does not provide water service, the RCD’s programs support environmental
awareness and watershed stewardship, including the protection of local water resources. The RCD serves
a 565 square mile area that encompasses most of the foothills and mountainous land surrounding the
Santa Clara Valley north of Morgan Hill. The RCD originated from two separate Soil Conservation
Districts, Evergreen and Black Mountain, formed in the early 1940’s by election of the landowners. The
two districts consolidated in 1977 and in 1995 the name was changed to the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource
Conservation District to reflect the two watersheds it serves.
Resource Conservation Districts are authorized under Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code.
The Guadalupe-Coyote RCD operates pursuant to Public Resources Code §9001 et seq. which states that
the division is enacted for the following purpose:
(a)(2). To provide for the organization and operation of resource conservation districts
for the purposes of soil and water conservation, the control of runoff, the prevention and
control of soil erosion, erosion stabilization, including, but not limited to, these purposes
in open areas, agricultural areas, urban development, wildlife areas, recreational
developments, watershed management, the protection of water quality, and water
reclamation, the development of storage and distribution of water, and the treatment of
each acre of land according to its needs.
The RCD has established a set of comprehensive goals, objectives and implementing actions to carry out
its mission within the County. Goals include the following:
• Increased Participation in Watershed Management
• Floodplain Management Improvement
• Riparian Corridor Management Improvement
• Waterway Protection and Restoration Improvement
• Increase Habitat Preservation Efforts
• Increase Erosion/Pollution Prevention Efforts
• Farm/Range Land Management Improvement
• Promote Pesticide, Herbicide and Chemical Alternatives
• Promote Improvements in Soil Fertility in a Sustainable Manner
• Promote Responsible Invasive Species Control
• Promote Native Species Protection and Information Dissemination
• Promote Preservation of Important Farmland
• Promote and Conduct Scientific Studies/Education
• Promote Proper Stream Design
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 71
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
Programs and Services
The RCD provides services on several levels, including programs and project implementation as well as
involvement in larger planning/policy efforts in the County. Based on its history of soil conservation, the
underlying emphasis for the RCD’s efforts is on reducing sediment in streams in order to ensure their
natural functions and reduce future maintenance needs and costs. The RCD is actively engaged in
initiatives, programs and projects that support the goals noted above, including the following:
• Watershed Management: The RCD participates in the Santa Clara Basin Water Management
Initiative (SCBWMI) where the primary effort is to develop a Watershed Management Plan. A large
number of stakeholders, representing a range of public and private interests are involved. The
SCBWMI includes several subgroups such as watershed assessment, land use, flood management,
and data management. The RCD has representatives participating in each of the subgroups and is
evaluating the means to increase their involvement.
• Floodplain Management: The RCD views floodplain management as a critical component of a
larger watershed management effort. The RCD provides input to city and County planners on the
need for responsible floodplain management and participates in the SCVWD Flood Zone meetings
(the SCVWD is the responsible agency for flood control in Santa Clara County). The RCD monitors
flood control projects, including assessing completed projects to assure they are in compliance with
conservation goals and are functioning per the permit requirements, primarily from a watershed
benefit perspective. In certain instances the RCD’s assessment of a project may be different than that
of the SCVWD. For example, the RCD noted in its 2003 Annual Report that it is concerned that the
flood control projects on the Guadalupe River are not working per the design specifications or as
presented in the environmental documents, and the RCD has made an effort to document the issue.
The majority of the SCVWD’s natural flood protection projects are done through the Clean, Safe
Creeks and Natural Flood Protection program; the special tax approved by voters to fund the
program included a provision for an independent oversight committee comprised of volunteers. This
committee meets regularly to monitor and report on the SCVWD’s projects, and project issues noted
by the committee are considered by the SCVWD and addressed appropriately. This committee’s
responsibilities and duties are not the same as the RCD’s oversight and monitoring work. The RCD
uses technical equipment to collect data and to measure and monitor stream functions and projects.
Data collection occurs through on the ground field sites; additionally the RCD uses video and photos
to document projects.
The RCD’s “watchdog” efforts in some ways duplicate those of the volunteer committee. However
some stakeholders believe there is value in having this additional oversight, particularly given the
critical role the creeks and streams have in the watershed for flood protection, water resources and
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 72
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
habitat. The RCD sees itself as fulfilling an important role to monitor projects and verify that there is
maximum benefit to the watershed and beneficial uses.
• Education: The RCD sponsors educational workshops to educate professionals and public agency
staff on technical topics related to watershed management and stream functions. The RCD seeks out
experts in watershed-related fields from across the United States to lead the sessions; the sessions are
held at the SCVWD and the registration fees cover the costs. For example, in 2003 an intermediate
level class was conducted on Applied Fluvial Geomorphology led by two noted professors from
Colorado State University. The RCD’s goal in this effort is to increase the level of knowledge and
understanding of watershed functions for those planning and designing projects within Santa Clara
County. Grants are provided to those unable to attend due to cost.
The RCD also co-sponsors soil contests for high school students with the Loma Prieta RCD. The
RCD has a cooperative educational program with the Children’s Discovery Museum in San Jose.
• Watershed Studies and Projects: In addition to its programs, the RCD is involved in watershed
studies. The first is the Santa Clara County Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort
(FAHCE) that includes participants such as the SCVWD, California Department of Fish and Game,
National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the City of San Jose. (The
FAHCE Settlement Agreement resulted from the RCD bringing a complaint against the SCVWD
because its operations were adversely impacting the Beneficial Uses such as coldwater fisheries.)
This project will address cumulative impacts on salmon and steelhead and their habitats on the
Guadalupe River, Coyote Creek, and Stevens Creek. The RCD also co-sponsored the Lower Silver
Creek Watershed Project with the SCVWD and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). This project involved restoring 19 reaches of the channelized creek to their natural state.
The RCD has also received grant funding to collect data on the hydrology of the upper reaches of
several creeks within its service area.
• Conservation Services: Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRCS, the RCD
utilizes the services of an NRCS conservationist to work closely with the Board of Directors in
implementing the RCD’s programs. Part of this effort includes providing resource conservation
information to individuals, schools and government entities and providing resource conservation
assistance to individual landowners.
The RCD provides small grants as well as information to those landowners who wish to eradicate
new exotic species of invasive weeds on their acreage at the stage where it can be easily eradicated.
The District’s boundary and Sphere of Influence are coterminous. A District map is shown on the
following page.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 73
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
Insert Guadalupe Coyote RCD map
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 74
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
1. Growth and Population
The Guadalupe-Coyote RCD serves the northern portion of Santa Clara County extending from north of
Morgan Hill to the San Francisco Bay. Within the RCD’s boundaries are portions of the cities of San
Jose, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, Cupertino, Campbell, Milpitas and
Monte Sereno. Much of the urban area within the northwest portion of the County is excluded. The
RCD’s service area is generally expected to have moderate growth, with the exception of the Coyote
Valley area where a high rate of growth is projected.
The RCD’s services provide benefit to both rural and urban interests. Land use within the RCD’s service
area has changed significantly, moving from primarily agricultural to a mix of uses represented today.
Following the State’s lead, the RCD’s mission and goals have changed as well, encompassing a more
comprehensive vision for watershed management while still providing practical conservation assistance
for landowners including erosion control measures, livestock watering systems, irrigation water systems,
range improvement practices and use of cover crops fro orchards and vineyards.
Northern Santa Clara County is highly dependent on the quality of its local surface water sources as well
as groundwater recharge opportunities and flood protection along the creeks. Although population
growth may not be significant overall, as land use intensifies in the region there will be an increased
demand for services related to conservation and watershed stewardship.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District does not own or maintain any infrastructure, nor
manage any water supply.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 75
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District is funded by its share of the 1% property tax as
well as interest income. Revenue and expenditures as reported to the State Controller and included in the
financial statement are shown below:
Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District – Financial Summary
FY 2000-2001 FY 2001-2002 FY 2002-2003
Revenue - Property Tax (1%) $94,613 $109,826 $109,204
Interest Income $6,404 $5,586 $3,165
Intergovernmental – State $1,145 $1,156 $1,169
Governmental Aid $5,122
Total $102,162 $116,568 $118,660
Expenses - Salaries, Wages, Benefits $8,529* $53,277 $52,928
Services and Supplies $44,598 $44,325 $78,086
Total $53,127 $97,602 $131,014
Net Income $49,035 $18,966 $(12,355)
Fund Balance (June 30) $139,779 $156,948 $146,299
*Note: The salary in FY 2000-2001 reflects a part time position; volunteers provided the additional labor
needed for district functioning.
The RCD was formed prior to the passage of Proposition 13. When it was created it received a dedicated
share of property tax revenues from the properties within its boundaries. Subsequent to the passage of
Proposition 13, the RCD now receives a dedicated share of the 1% property tax.
The RCD’s Board of Directors has taken a conservative approach to managing its finances; holding an
average of $148,000 in reserves with the County Treasurer over the most recent three-year period. The
RCD has an adopted Long Range Plan that includes programs and projects it intends to implement over a
five year period. However in discussions with RCD staff, there was a general consensus that finances
were limited and the RCD had to carefully manage its expenses.
Guadalupe-Coyote does not have any capital assets and does not plan to acquire any. The FY 2004-2005
budgeted expenses equal $240,000, including $69,531 for projects within the Guadalupe Watershed. The
RCD noted in discussions that it had been awarded a $50,000 grant in 2003 through the CALFED
program to collect hydrology measurements on the upper reaches of several creeks in order to provide a
record of existing conditions that can be coupled with historic data. This compilation can then be used in
planning for any improvements or flood protection projects. The other major expenses are $35,000 for
seminars, workshops and conferences and $16,000 for educational outreach. If these expenses are
incurred as budgeted, the RCD’s reserves will be used to fund the revenue shortfall.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 76
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
Per the State budget act of 2004, the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District will be required
to contribute to the County’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in both FY 2004-2005 and 2005-
2006. The County Auditor-Controller will reduce the RCD’s annual tax increment by the required
contribution amount. The RCD’s estimated contribution is $10,982.60 for FY 2004-2005. Given the
RCD’s reserve level, it should be able to accommodate this reduction in revenue with little impact to the
programs and services it provides.
The RCD is audited annually for the State Controller’s Report and audited every two years for its regular
audit. The audit for the year ending June 30, 2003 was not qualified in any way.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District operates with one full-time staff and volunteers.
The RCD has the County Board of Supervisors appoint board members in order to avoid the costs of an
election. In addition, the Associate Directors of the RCD perform volunteer work.
5. Management Efficiencies
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District is managed by one fulltime staff member directed
by the RCD’s Board. All of the RCD’s activities are related to its goals, and each of the goals has
objectives and identified actions for implementation. An annual report is prepared summarizing actions
taken under each goal and the status of each of these action items. This provides a means for the RCD
and the public to monitor progress, and the RCD is able to redirect efforts as necessary.
Per the requirements of Public Resource Code Division 9, the RCD has adopted a Long Range Plan that
includes goals and an implementation plan through 2007. Division 9 requires that RCDs develop a
strategic plan that identifies “all resource issues within the district for local, state, and federal resource
conservation planning.” The plan must cover a five-year period and include a framework for setting
annual priorities (annual plans) as outlined in the long-range plan. In addition, the plan must also include
a means for conveying ideas contained in the plan to the public and other public agencies. Lastly, the
plan must include a basis for evaluating progress made toward goals and objectives outlined in the plan.
The RCD’s Long-Range Plan meets these requirements, ensuring that the RCD has established goals and
remains focused on its core mission.
6. Shared Facilities
The Guadalupe-Coyote RCD shares facilities and programs to further its efforts and mission in northern
Santa Clara County. The RCD has entered into an MOU with the USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service and utilizes the services of an NRCS District Conservationist. The RCD also has an MOU with
the Loma Prieta RCD as well as MOU for Second Weed Management Plan with the NRCS, California
Department of Agriculture, State Parks, SCVWD, SFPUC, UC Cooperative Extension and a variety of
other agencies.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 77
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
The existing soil study for Santa Clara County is outdated, having been prepared several decades ago.
The RCD is assisting the NRCS in preparing a county-wide soil study which will be available for use by
public and private interests.
7. Rate Restructuring
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District does not charge fees or service charges for its
services, other than to cover direct costs for the technical education classes.
8. Government Structure Options
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District is providing programs and services for the benefit
of the Guadalupe and Coyote and all other watersheds within the District, including the following: San
Francisquito Creek, Matadero/Barron, Permanente, Stevens, Calabazas, San Tomas Aquino-Saratoga,
Lower Penitencia, Upper Penitencia, and Upper Calaveras.
Two government structure options were identified for the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation
District:
1. Maintain the status quo
This option would allow the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District to continue providing
programs without making any changes to its boundaries. The primary advantage to this option is program
continuity as well as the potential for increased revenue through grants that are only available to RCDs
and related agencies. The RCD is currently providing programs that are beneficial to the two watersheds
and their residents. Because of the breadth of services RCDs are authorized to provide through their
enabling legislation, there is no one agency that could offer all of the programs currently provided by the
Guadalupe-Coyote RCD. The RCD is actively working for the benefit of both the Guadalupe and Coyote
Watersheds, and has successfully pursued grant funding in order to leverage its resources. As an RCD, it
is able to offer a broad range of conservation-related programs to residents and landowners within its
boundaries. These types of programs typically generate strong interest by stakeholders who donate
valuable volunteer time for the benefit of the region.
The disadvantage to this option is that there could be some duplication of services related to watershed
stewardship. Although their enabling legislation is different (the SCVWD is based in comprehensive
water resource management and flood control, the RCD is in soil conservation and a broad range of
conservation issues), the programs and services offered by the RCD and the SCVWD’s Watershed core
business are complementary. Even though they are closely related, the SCVWD could not fully provide
all the conservation services and programs the RCD is authorized to provide, i.e. the control of runoff and
prevention of soil erosion in areas that would not impact the water courses within the County.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 78
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
2. Dissolve the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District and name the SCVWD as the
successor agency
With this option the RCD would be dissolved and the SCVWD would be responsible for providing
resource conservation programs within the RCD’s former boundaries to the extent it is authorized per its
enabling act. As the successor agency, the SCVWD would be entitled to the RCD’s share of the 1%
property tax. The advantages to this option include potential economies of scale, elimination of the
potential for duplicate watershed-related services, the possibility of increased grant funding through the
SCVWD’s Watershed core business, and expanded public awareness of watershed issues through the
SCVWD’s existing public outreach programs. The RCD’s boundaries are entirely within the boundaries
of the SCVWD, and the SCVWD is authorized to provide programs that are related to comprehensive
water management for all beneficial uses and protection from flooding.
The disadvantages include more restricted service levels, a possible reduction in volunteer support, the
loss of some independent oversight on flood control projects, potential funding limitations under the
federal Small Watershed Act, and a lack of certainty on how the property tax funding would be used. The
SCVWD may not place the same priorities on programs as the RCD does, which could result in a change
of services or programs. While the programs and services the SCVWD is authorized to provide are broad
in scope, they must in some way relate to water resource management and flood protection. The RCD is
not limited in this way and can provide programs that are related to a wide range of conservation issues.
The current soil conservation services offered by the RCD would have to be provided directly through the
Natural Resources Conservation Service or another entity (such as UC Cooperative Extension) as the
SCVWD is not authorized to provide these unless they are related to water resource management or flood
control. The federal Small Watershed Act (Public Law 566) requires that projects be in compliance with
district conservation plans in order to receive funding. The SCVWD’s Lower Silver Creek Flood Control
Project received federal funding due to the RCD’s involvement; it had previously been denied by the US
Army Corps of Engineers and was later accepted after changes were incorporated to bring it into
compliance with the RCD’s conservation plan.
This may result in a reduction in the level of volunteer support currently occurring with the RCD’s
programs as volunteer opportunities are more limited with the SCVWD. Because of its goal for
floodplain management, the RCD sometimes serves in a “watchdog” role, assessing the results of flood
control projects to make sure they meet the stated levels of service and permit requirements.
With regards to use of the property tax funding, there is no guarantee or requirement that the property tax
funding collected locally be used for local programs because the SCVWD is a county-wide district.
Watershed management is a core business for the SCVWD and it receives a significant amount of
funding, but there is no certainty that the locally collected property tax revenue will be used within the
Guadalupe and Coyote Watersheds for conservation.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 79
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
Some of the goals and programs of the RCD are similar in many respects to those of the SCVWD, and at
the outset it may appear to be of obvious benefit to have the RCD reorganize with the SCVWD, tapping
into the programs and resources of the larger agency to reach a broader base. However the success of
watershed programs is integrally related to stakeholder involvement and volunteer support, and there is
value in a smaller organization that allows direct stakeholder involvement in program implementation.
Because of its size, community members are able to be directly involved in conservation and watershed
issues and provide volunteer hours to carry out the RCD’s action items. The volunteer opportunities for
the SCVWD’s watershed programs include participating in creek cleanups through the Creek Connections
Action Group and following progress through the Creekside Chronicle newsletters. The RCD has been
financially stable for a number of years and has the financial resources to carry out its programs at current
or enhanced service levels. The SCVWD is currently experiencing financial constraints due to revenue
reductions mandated by the State budget act of 2004, and it is expected that service levels for non-
essential programs will be reduced for the next two years. A number of factors would need to be
evaluated to determine if this option would provide sufficient benefit to the residents, including
determining all of the tangible and intangible costs associated with a change.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The Guadalupe-Coyote RCD is governed by a five member Board of Directors appointed by the County
Board of Supervisors; one seat is currently vacant. The Directors serve staggered four-year terms, and
new Directors are provided with an orientation. The current Board is as follows:
Board Member Title Term of Office Compensation
Lawrence Johmann President 2006 None
Carle Hylkema Vice-President 2006 None
Edward Munyak Director 2008 None
James Moore Director 2008 None
Vacant
The Board meets the first and third Monday of each month at 6:00 PM in the RCD’s offices. The agenda
is sent to the County; meeting notices are posted at the RCD’s offices and sent to the SCVWD, NRCS
and other interested parties. The GCRCD has recently established a new Web site to increase GCRCD
outreach as well as public awareness of local conservation issues (www.gcrcd.org).
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District serves the northern portion of Santa Clara
County. The area is generally projected to have moderate growth rates, with the exception of the Coyote
Valley area where a higher rate of growth is projected.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 80
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
Land use within the RCD’s service area includes both rural and urban; demand for resource conservation
services is expected to increase as land use intensifies.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District does not own or maintain any infrastructure nor
provide any water supply.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District is funded through its share of the 1% property tax,
supplemented by interest on reserves and grant funding.
The RCD has been successful in pursuing grant funding to further expand its programs and projects.
The RCD has maintained reserves at a level that is higher than necessary based on the services provided
in the past; however reserves may be needed to fully implement the FY 2004-2005 budget.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The RCD is avoiding costs through the use of one fulltime staff and volunteers. The RCD’s Associate
Directors regularly perform volunteer work.
5) Management Efficiencies
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District achieves management efficiencies through the use
of its Long-Range Plan and associated goals, objectives and action items. The Annual Report allows the
Board of Directors and the public to monitor progress on goals and objectives.
6) Shared Facilities
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District participates in and conducts programs with other
agencies, including the SCVWD, the USDA/NRCS, the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management
Initiative and other watershed-related entities in the County.
7) Rate Restructuring
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District does not charge fees for its services, other than
registration fees to cover the cost of technical education classes.
8) Government Structure Options
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District is providing programs and services for the benefit
of the Guadalupe and Coyote and all other watersheds within the District.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 81
Special Districts: Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
Two government structure options were identified:
• Maintain the status quo: The RCD would continue to provide programs with no changes to its
boundaries.
– Advantage: This option allows for continuity of service; no other agency could provide all of the
programs offered by the RCD.
– Disadvantage: There could be some duplication of services in the area of watershed stewardship
between what is provided by the RCD and the Watershed core business of the SCVWD.
• Dissolve the Guadalupe-Coyote RCD and name the SCVWD as the successor agency: As the
successor agency, the SCVWD would be responsible for implementing resource conservation
programs within the RCD’s former boundaries to the extent it is authorized to do so.
– Advantages: This option offers potential economies of scale, elimination of the potential for
duplicate watershed services, a possibility of increased grant funding through the SCVWD’s
Watershed core business, and expanded public awareness of watershed issues through the
SCVWD’s existing public outreach programs.
– Disadvantages: This option could result in a narrower range of services or programs than what is
currently being offered. The SCVWD is not legally established as a Resource Conservation
District, and cannot provide the broad range of services that resource conservation districts can
provide. This could also limit potential funding from some programs such as the federal Small
Watershed Act (Public Law 566) which requires that projects be in compliance with district
conservation plans in order to be eligible. Also, because the SCVWD is a county-wide district,
there is no requirement or guarantee that the property tax funds collected locally would be spent
only on local conservation programs.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District has a process for ensuring local accountability
and governance. Board members are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The Board meets
regularly and public noticed is provided through posting.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 82
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
G. LOMA PRIETA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Overview
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District (RCD) was formed in 1942 to provide soil conservation
services for the southern portion of Santa Clara County and a portion of northern San Benito County. The
RCD’s boundary has changed over time such that it now only serves the area within Santa Clara County.
The range of services has been expanded to include watershed-related programs in keeping with its
authorizing legislation.
Resource Conservation Districts are authorized under Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code.
The Loma Prieta RCD operates pursuant to Public Resources Code §9001 et seq. which states that the
division is enacted for the following purpose:
(a)(2). To provide for the organization and operation of resource conservation districts
for the purposes of soil and water conservation, the control of runoff, the prevention and
control of soil erosion, erosion stabilization, including, but not limited to, these purposes
in open areas, agricultural areas, urban development, wildlife areas, recreational
developments, watershed management, the protection of water quality, and water
reclamation, the development of storage and distribution of water, and the treatment of
each acre of land according to its needs.
The RCD’s mission is to advise and assist individuals and public agencies in the prevention of soil
erosion, runoff control, development and use of water, land use planning, conservation of wildlife and
other related natural resources. This is accomplished by creating a public awareness of the continuing
need for resource conservation through public information and education programs.
Programs and Services
The Loma Prieta RCD provides the following services:
• Soil Conservation: The RCD conducts educational programs for soil conservation and sponsors a
contest for high school students.
• Creek Stewardship: The RCD is a partner in the Creek Connections Action Group along with the
SCVWD and other entities. This group organizes two countywide creek cleanup efforts annually.
• Rural Landowner Workshops: Once a year the RCD offers a four-week series of workshops for
rural landowners with small farms, small horse ranches, or vineyards. Topics include soil
conservation, septic systems, fire-safe landscaping and other related subjects. The workshops have
averaged approximately 40 to 50 attendees. The SCVWD provides initial information on the
workshops to new landowners identified through the Tax Assessor’s information, and then
coordinates the registration process. The RCD is responsible for the meeting arrangements such as
the location, refreshments, etc.
The District’s boundary and Sphere of Influence are coterminous. A District map is shown on the
following page.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 83
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
Insert Loma Prieta RCD map
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 84
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
1. Growth and Population
The Loma Prieta RCD serves the southern portion of Santa Clara County. The RCD is bordered on the
east, south and west by Stanislaus, Merced, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties. The RCD’s service area
is primarily rural and unincorporated with the exception of the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The
RCD’s original boundaries only included unincorporated lands outside the city limits of Gilroy and
Morgan Hill, as well as lands that did not comprise the community of San Martin prior to July 13, 1942.
The RCD’s boundaries surrounding these areas have not been updated since the RCD’s inception, and the
areas that have been annexed by the two cities are still within Loma Prieta’s service area.
Generally, population within this area is expected to increase significantly through 2020, concentrated
within the Urban Service Area of each city. Although not as dramatic, the land use and population
outside the two Urban Service Areas is changing as well. Economics and changing demographics have
generated a trend from large agricultural enterprises to smaller operations, such as three to five acre
farms, small horse ranches and vineyards. This trend has increased the need for conservation/water
quality protection services as lack of landowner education can result in land use activities that are
detrimental to the local environment. In response to this trend, the RCD’s services are primarily focused
on soil conservation, creek protection and water quality, and landowner education. The South County is
entirely dependent on groundwater for its supply, which makes the protection of local surface water and
natural recharge facilities more critical. Growth and population will continue to increase in South County
resulting in greater environmental pressures and increased demand for these types of services.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District does not own or maintain any infrastructure, nor manage
any water supply.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District is funded by its share of the 1% property tax as well as
interest income. Revenue and expenditures as reported to the State Controller are shown below:
Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District – Financial Summary
FY 1999-2000 FY 2000-2001 FY 2001-2002
Revenue - Property Tax (1%) $28,703 $32,185 $37,766
Interest Income 2,251 2,837 2,369
Intergovernmental – State 417 420 438
Other Revenues 58 80
Total $31,429 $35,522 $40,573
Expenses - Salaries, Wages, Benefits $9,107 $8,679 $9,520
Services and Supplies 18,313 16,494 13,887
Total $27,420 $25,173 $23,407
Net Income $4,009 $10,349 $17,166
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 85
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
The RCD was formed prior to the passage of Proposition 13. When it was created it received a dedicated
share of property tax revenues from the properties within its boundaries. Subsequent to the passage of
Proposition 13, the RCD now receives a dedicated share of the 1% property tax.
The basic financial records of the RCD are maintained by the office of the County Auditor-Controller.
The RCD undergoes an independent audit every three years. The last audit noted was for June 2001. The
RCD recently received notice that its former auditing firm will no longer be providing the service, and the
RCD is actively looking for a new firm to complete its 2004 audit.
Historically the RCD’s Board of Directors has taken a very conservative approach to its finances, such
that the RCD now holds approximately $93,500 in reserves with the County Treasurer. The RCD has
applied for a grant through the SCVWD and if awarded, $10,000 of the RCD’s reserves will be used to
fund the required match. The RCD’s current Board of Directors has an interest in expanding the RCD’s
services by capitalizing on the RCD’s financial resources. The RCD has a newly appointed treasurer who
is evaluating the RCD’s financial condition and will be making recommendations to the Board.
Loma Prieta does not have any substantial capital assets and, based on the type of services provided,
would not necessarily require a high level of reserves to fund a capital acquisition or major capital
improvement project. The RCD could address reserve levels through District policy, which should have
some relationship to the RCD’s adopted Long Range Plan and the activities it plans to accomplish. With
the increasing financial constraints faced by public agencies that provide essential public services, it is
incumbent upon special districts with property tax revenue to demonstrate good stewardship of this
financial resource.
Per the State budget act of 2004, the Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District will be required to
contribute to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in both FY 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The
County Auditor-Controller will reduce the RCD’s annual tax increment by the required contribution
amount. Loma Prieta’s estimated contribution is $3,769 for FY 2004-2005. Given the RCD’s financial
history, it should be able to accommodate this reduction in revenue with little impact to the programs and
services it provides.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District controls costs by operating with limited overhead. The
RCD has one part-time staff and uses volunteer support where appropriate. The RCD is avoiding election
costs by having the County Board of Supervisors appoint the RCD’s Directors.
There are a number of conservation-related resources available to the RCD to use in delivering its
programs. The US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service has offices in
Hollister and Salinas. At one point, Loma Prieta had an NRCS staff member on site but that position was
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 86
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
eliminated due to federal budget cuts. The RCD may also leverage the expertise of the University of
California Cooperative Extension Program and the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau. In addition, the
State Department of Conservation also provides programs and information to support and enhance the
RCD’s services.
The RCD’s annual landowner workshops are delivered through a coordinated effort with the SCVWD.
The SCVWD identifies potential participants through tax assessor information and coordinates the
registration process. The RCD is responsible for the meeting place arrangements and the speakers.
5. Management Efficiencies
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District is managed by one part-time staff member under the
direction of the RCD’s Board. The RCD has a five-member voting board supplemented by two non-
voting associate board members. The two associates provide a pool of trained Directors when terms
expire, ensuring a smooth transition when new Directors are seated.
The California Conservation Partnership and California Department of Conservation have published The
Resource Conservation District Guidebook: A Guide to District Operations and Management (1999).
This guide is available for the RCD’s use.
Per the requirements of Public Resource Code Division 9, the RCD has prepared a Long Range Plan that
includes goals and an implementation plan through 2007. Division 9 requires that RCDs develop a
strategic plan that identifies “all resource issues within the district for local, state, and federal resource
conservation planning.” The plan must cover a five-year period and include a framework for setting
annual priorities (annual plans) as outlined in the long-range plan. In addition, the plan must also include
a means for conveying ideas contained in the plan to the public and other public agencies. Lastly, the
plan must include a basis for evaluating progress made toward goals and objectives outlined in the plan.
The Plan provides structure and guidance for the RCD’s activities and tasks, providing a means to
evaluate results.
6. Shared Facilities
Loma Prieta regularly shares facilities and programs to maximize its outreach and education efforts. The
RCD has entered into MOUs with the Department of Conservation, the Central Coast Resource
Conservation and Development Association and the USDA/NRCS.
7. Rate Restructuring
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District does not charge fees or service charges for its services,
other than a nominal registration fee for the workshops. Revenue has been adequate to meet budgeted
expenses, and reserve levels have steadily increased.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 87
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
8. Government Structure Options
Three government structure options were identified for the Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District:
1. Maintain the status quo
This option would allow the Loma Prieta RCD to continue providing programs without making any
changes to its boundaries. There are several advantages to this approach, including continuity of service.
The RCD is providing a service that residents find valuable in the annual landowner workshops. As an
RCD, it is able to offer a broad range of conservation-related programs to residents and landowners
within its boundaries; there is no other agency that could provide all of the same programs. The RCD is
also providing community involvement and educational opportunities that increase environmental
awareness and promote better land stewardship, both important to the long-term protection of water
resources. Lastly, the area has a long agricultural history and a number of the landowners have a strong
affinity to the RCD and the soil conservation service it has provided over the years.
The disadvantage to this option is that there could be some duplication of services related to watershed
stewardship. Although their enabling legislation is different (the SCVWD is based in comprehensive
water resource management and flood control, the RCD is in soil conservation and a broad range of
conservation issues), the programs and services offered by the RCD and the SCVWD’s Watershed core
business are complementary. Even though they are closely related, the SCVWD could not fully provide
all the conservation services and programs the RCD is authorized to provide, i.e. the control of runoff and
prevention of soil erosion in areas that would not impact the water courses within the County.
2. Dissolve the Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District and name the SCVWD as the successor
agency
With this option the RCD would be dissolved and the SCVWD would be responsible for providing
resource conservation programs to the extent it is authorized in its enabling act. As the successor agency,
the SCVWD would be entitled to the RCD’s share of the 1% property tax. The advantages to this option
include potential economies of scale, elimination of duplicate services, a possibility of increased grant
funding through the SCVWD’s Watershed core business, and expanded public awareness of watershed
issues through the SCVWD’s existing public outreach programs. The RCD’s boundaries are entirely
within the boundaries of the SCVWD, and the SCVWD is authorized to provide programs that are related
to comprehensive water management for all beneficial uses and protection from flooding.
The disadvantages to this option are a narrower range of services available to residents, potential funding
limitations under the federal Small Watershed Act, and a lack of certainty in how the property tax funding
would be used. The SCVWD may not place the same priorities on programs as the RCD does, which
could result in a change of services or programs. While the programs and services the SCVWD is
authorized to provide are broad in scope, they must in some way relate to water resource management and
flood protection. The RCD is not limited in this way and can provide programs that are related to a wide
range of conservation issues. The current soil conservation services offered by the RCD would have to be
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 88
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
provided directly through the Natural Resources Conservation Service or another entity (such as UC
Cooperative Extension) as the SCVWD is not authorized to provide these unless they are related to water
resource management or flood control. The federal Small Watershed Act (Public Law 566) requires that
projects be in compliance with district conservation plans in order to be eligible.
Equally important is consideration for how the property tax funding could be used in the future.
Watershed management is a core business for the SCVWD and receives a significant amount of funding;
however the SCVWD is a county-wide district and there is no requirement that the property tax funding
collected locally within the Loma Prieta RCD service area be used for local programs.
The RCD has been financially stable for a number of years and has the financial resources to carry out its
programs at current or enhanced service levels. The SCVWD is currently experiencing financial
constraints due to revenue reductions mandated by the State budget act of 2004, and it is expected that
service levels for non-essential programs will be reduced for the next two years. A number of factors
would need to be evaluated to determine if this option would provide sufficient benefit to the residents,
including determining all of the tangible and intangible costs associated with a change.
3. Detach annexed areas from the Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
The option would involve making boundary adjustments in the Gilroy and Morgan Hill areas. When the
Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District was originally formed, it was intended to provide soil and
water conservation services to rural areas outside the cities and the San Martin area. There were no
subsequent boundary updates and areas that have been annexed by the cities are still within the RCD’s
boundaries. This option would restore the RCD’s boundaries to the original intent by removing any areas
annexed to the Cities of Gilroy or Morgan Hill. The RCD’s share of the 1% property tax for the detached
areas would be reallocated to each taxing jurisdiction within that Tax Rate Area. The primary advantage
includes increased public benefit from the property tax funding in those areas as the funding is reallocated
to other public services. The RCD was formed to serve rural areas and its core programs provide greater
benefit to those areas over more developed areas. Based on the RCD’s existing programs, the drop in
service levels within the annexed areas would be minimal and could be addressed through the programs
the SCVWD is currently providing. (City residents could still participate in RCD sponsored programs,
perhaps for an additional fee or some other compensating rate.)
There are several disadvantages to this option. First, residents within the cities may place a high value on
the services provided by the RCD and there may be a potential lack of community support for any
change. Second, the RCD’s goals and action plan may change after the Board of Directors completes its
review of the RCD’s financial condition. Removing these areas may limit the scope and scale of
programs that could be provided in the future. Third, the RCD’s operating revenue would be reduced per
the amount and valuation of the detached areas. (This would be marginally offset by the additional
property tax revenue to be gained from the Pacheco Flats area which was recently identified as being in
the RCD’s boundaries.)
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 89
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
9. Local Accountability and Governance
Loma Prieta is governed by a five-member Board of Directors appointed by the County Board of
Supervisors. The Directors serve staggered four-year terms, and new Directors are provided with an
orientation. The current board is as follows:
Board Member Title Term of Office Compensation
Emily Baird Chairperson 2008 None
Kris Maas Director 2006 None
Steven Malech Director 2008 None
Jeannette Dickens Director 2006 None
David Ball Treasurer 2008 None
The Board meets the third Tuesday of each month at 4:30 PM. Meeting notices are posted in the RCD’s
offices. The RCD does not have a website.
Historically the RCD conservatively managed its financial resources, which may not have maximized the
benefit to the taxpayers. The RCD’s Board is discussing new strategies and an approach to fully utilize
property tax funding in the future.
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District currently serves the southern portion of the County.
This area is projected to have modest growth in the future, which will be concentrated within the Urban
Service Areas of the two cities.
Land use outside the Urban Service Areas is gradually changing from large agricultural operations to
smaller farms, vineyards and small ranches. The need for landowner services will increase in order to
maintain environmental quality and adequate soil/water conservation.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District does not own or maintain any infrastructure or provide
any water supply.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District is funded through its share of the 1% property tax,
supplemented by interest on reserves.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 90
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
The RCD has increased its reserves annually for each of the three years reported. In FY 2001-2002 the
RCD only expended 58% of its operating revenue for the year.
The RCD has accumulated reserves that are higher than necessary for the current levels of service.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The RCD is avoiding costs through the use of part-time staff.
5) Management Efficiencies
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District has management tools available to assist in operations,
such as the Resource Conservation District Guidebook.
The RCD has a five year Long-Range Plan that provides a framework and direction for RCD actions.
6) Shared Facilities
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District shares facilities with other agencies, including the
SCVWD, the California Department of Conservation, and the USDA/NRCS.
7) Rate Restructuring
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District does not charge fees for its services, other than a
registration fee for workshops.
8) Government Structure Options
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District is providing conservation-related programs in the
southern portion of Santa Clara County. Three government structure options were identified:
• Maintain the status quo: The RCD would continue to provide programs with no changes to its
boundaries.
– Advantage: This option allows for continuity of service; no other agency could provide all of the
services the RCD is authorized to provide.
– Disadvantage: There could be some duplication of services in the area of watershed stewardship
between what is provided by the RCD and the Watershed core business of the SCVWD.
• Dissolve the Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District and name the SCVWD as the
successor agency: As the successor agency, the SCVWD would be responsible for implementing
resource conservation programs within the RCD’s former boundaries to the extent it is authorized by
its enabling act.
– Advantages: This option offers potential economies of scale, elimination of duplicate services, a
possibility of increased grant funding through the SCVWD’s Watershed core business, and
expanded public awareness of watershed issues through the SCVWD’s existing public outreach
programs.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 91
Special Districts: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District
– Disadvantages: This option could result in a narrower range of services or programs than what is
being offered. The SCVWD is not legally established as a Resource Conservation District, and
cannot provide the broad services that resource conservation districts can provide. This could
limit potential funding as the federal Small Watershed Act (Public Law 566) requires that projects
be in compliance with district conservation plans in order to be eligible. Also, because the
SCVWD is a county-wide district there is no requirement or guarantee that the property tax funds
collected locally would be spent only on local conservation programs.
• Detach annexed areas from the RCD: The RCD’s boundaries would be adjusted to exclude any
areas annexed by the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill.
– Advantages: This option would potentially increase the public benefit derived from the 1%
property tax collected from the annexed areas. The RCD was originally formed to serve rural
areas and its core programs provide greater benefit to rural rather than more developed areas.
– Disadvantages: This option could result in lower service levels and reduced conservation
program funding for the annexed areas. It could potentially limit the scope and scale of future
RCD programs as they would not be made available within the two cities. The RCD’s operating
revenue would be reduced by the amount of the RCD’s share of the 1% property tax assessed
within the detached areas.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District has a process for ensuring local accountability and
governance. Board members are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The Board meets
regularly and meeting notices are posted in a public location.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 92
33.. CITY WATER AGENCIES
City of Gilroy
City of Milpitas
City of Morgan Hill
City of Mountain View
City of Palo Alto
San Jose Municipal Water System
City of Santa Clara
City of Sunnyvale
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 93
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
A. CITY OF GILROY
Overview
The City of Gilroy, located in the southern most portion of Santa Clara County, encompasses 14.65
square miles and provides water services to approximately 46,000 residents. The water utility is managed
by the Operations Division of the City’s Community Services Department. Gilroy’s only source of water
is groundwater, making groundwater quality a critical issue. Moderate growth is projected for the South
County, including Gilroy. The City recently completed its Water System Master Plan to ensure that
system reliability and capacity is in keeping with the projected growth.
1. Growth and Population
The City of Gilroy has three planning boundaries: the city limits of the incorporated area, the Urban
Service Area, and a 20-year planning boundary. The City’s sphere of influence extends from Fitzgerald
Avenue/Masten Avenue south to the San Benito County border. The City considered growth and
population projections in its 2020 General Plan, estimating a population of 60,500 to 62,500 in 2020. In
October 2003, the 2020 projection was revised to 65,082. A higher rate of growth is projected up until
2010 with an incremental increase of 1,100 additional residents per year. Growth from 2010 through
2020 is projected to be somewhat slower with an increase of only 800-1,000 new residents per year. This
yields an average annual growth rate of 2.8% through 2020. ABAG’s 2005 projections estimate Gilroy’s
population at 53,500 in 2005, reaching 66,400 by 2030. The estimated build-out population based on
land use designations in the General Plan is 82,136.
The City currently provides water service to the following connection types:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 10,324 89.33%
Manufacturing/Industrial/Commercial 837 7.24%
Irrigation/Agriculture 392 3.39%
Recycled 3 .03%
Total 11,556 100%
The City has developed a vision for the character and quality of Gilroy which provides guidance and
direction for the General Plan’s goals, policies and implementing actions. The vision identifies desirable
city attributes which include the following that relate to growth, development and the provision of water
service:
• Small town character
• Rural setting, surrounded by open space
• Compact, integrated development pattern; and
• Link between growth and resources.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 94
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
Two primary principles of Gilroy’s 2020 General Plan include managing growth and minimizing cost.
Growth is managed through the use of the 20-year growth boundary, Urban Service Area boundary,
Residential Development Ordinance, and policies that coordinate development approvals with
infrastructure extensions and service provision. Costs are minimized by directing growth to areas that
will be less expensive to serve and where potential impacts can be reduced.
The amount of undeveloped land within a jurisdiction also serves as an indicator of potential growth.
Gilroy’s 2020 General Plan noted the following inventory of undeveloped land in 1999: Residential 26%,
Commercial 29%, and Industrial 74%. Land uses of developable land also indicate the potential for
increased water demand, particularly in the industrial sector. Depending on the industry type and
processes, industrial water demand can be significantly greater than residential or commercial demand.
Industrial demand can be met with recycled water in some cases. The City of Gilroy, in conjunction with
the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the South County Regional Waste Water Authority
(SCRWA), are working to maximize the use of recycled water in South County. Existing SCRWA
recycled water treatment facilities can produce 3 million gallons per day (mgd) of tertiary treated recycled
water, and expansion to 9 mgd capacity is expected to be completed by the end of 2005. The October
2004 Recycled Water Master Plan that was developed jointly by SCRWA and the SCVWD includes
pipeline projects to deliver recycled water to new customers.
In 2002 Gilroy expanded its 20-year boundary to include 660 acres of agricultural land. If development
were to occur, the total water demand for non-agricultural uses would increase significantly, based on the
type of land use. There may be impacts to groundwater resources that would need to be evaluated as part
of the consideration regarding whether to extend the City’s Urban Service Area.
Growth will continue to be a significant issue for Gilroy, both in terms of planning for infrastructure and
the resultant increase in water demand. The County’s planning and development approvals within the
adjacent San Martin area inherently affect Gilroy for groundwater impacts. Gilroy’s groundwater flows
southward from Morgan Hill and San Martin, and the continued use of septic systems outside the two
Urban Service Areas increases the risk of nitrate levels exceeding acceptable limits in Gilroy. The cost
for more intensive water treatment processes to mitigate lower water quality will ultimately be borne by
the rate payers. As the South County area increases in population, jurisdictions with more employment
opportunities will see increased demand within commercial and industrial areas. The South County Joint
Area Plan establishes the framework for planning coordination between the three jurisdictions (Morgan
Hill, Gilroy and the County). Continued collaboration and coordination among the water purveyors in
South County will benefit the Gilroy community.
The City has addressed the impact on water service from growth and the projected increase in population
in its 2020 General Plan, 2004 Water Master Plan and 2000 Urban Water Management Plan.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 95
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Gilroy’s water system is comprised of the following:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 120 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 11
Total Water Storage Volume 14.07 MG
Pump Stations 6 (booster)
Wells 8
Total Well Pumping Capacity 15.47 MGD
Pressure Zones 3
Gilroy has adopted infrastructure standards that are more costly to construct but have a longer usable life
and reduced maintenance and repair costs. In particular, the Gilroy distribution system is constructed
with cast iron pipe and the storage reservoirs are all steel or concrete. The oldest reservoir was built in
1969.
The City adopted its Water Master Plan in May 2004. The Plan provides for system improvements based
on projected growth and increased demand, using the build-out conditions of the 2020 General Plan. The,
the Master Plan includes recommendations in several areas, and implementation is planned to coincide
with development and capacity needs.
• Distribution System: new or increased capacity pipelines to extend service to areas of new
development
• Supply Capacity: construction of 8 new wells to meet increased demand in 2005 equal to a total of
22.8 MGD
• Storage Capacity: additional storage capacity of 5.3 MG for Pressure Zone 1 and 0.71 MG storage
reservoir for Pressure Zone 2 South
• Mesa Ridge Water System: new pipelines and infrastructure that would be required to serve a
proposed development
• Fire Flow Improvements for Downtown Commercial Area: pipeline replacement to provide adequate
capacity for fire flow.
The Master Plan includes a recommended Capital Improvement Program based on the findings and
recommendations.
The City noted several infrastructure improvements that are either planned or in the process of being
implemented. These include four new wells to be constructed over the next few years: two in 2005, one
in 2006 and one in 2009. The City is also adding two new storage reservoirs at 0.710 MG each. The
budget includes funding for improvements to 9,188 feet of pipeline.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 96
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
The City has budgeted for capital improvements through FY 2023. One significant annual budget item is
for meters; this expenditure is budgeted at $300,000 per year through the 2010 and $100,000 per year
through 2023. For FY 2004-2005, the City has budgeted $683,612 for capital improvements to the water
system and $5.6 million for water development projects such as wells and the sports park water main
extension.
It was noted in the Water Master Plan that there is insufficient fire flow in the downtown area during peak
demand conditions. Recommendations include replacing 7,300 feet of existing 4” pipe with 6, 8 and 10”
mains. The City will be addressing the upgrades through its maintenance and replacement budget rather
than the CIP.
Water Demand
Existing and build-out water demands within Gilroy are as follows:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Day Demand 7.44 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand* 17.1 MGD
Existing Peak Demand 13.7 MGD
Build-Out Average Day Demand 14.8 MGD
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand 34.0 MGD*
* Based on current max day peaking factor of 2.3
Per the City’s 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, Gilroy has experienced a range of per capita
consumption rates in the past. This is expressed as “gallons per capita per day” (GPCD). The high was
205 GPCD in 1984 and the low was 143 GPCD in 1991. The City currently uses a rate of 180 GPCD for
its planning. Using an estimated household size of 3.46 persons per ABAG projections, the daily demand
per residential unit is 622.8 gallons.
Water Supply
Gilroy’s current water supply is as follows:
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume Total
(Contractual)
Groundwater Wells 17,362 AF NA 100%
Total 17,362 AF NA 100%
Gilroy overlies the Llagas Sub-basin and shares this groundwater resource with the other water providers
in the South County. Groundwater is the sole source of domestic supply as the City has no
interconnections to other systems. Gilroy operates eight wells on the valley floor, treating the water at the
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 97
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
wellhead prior to distribution. Groundwater recharge is performed by the SCVWD, and the City pays a
pump tax to cover its share of those costs.
There is no groundwater flow model for the South County. However, State Department of Water
Resources maps dated 1914 and 1974 indicate a south-southeasterly direction of groundwater flow under
the City of Gilroy. The water elevation map prepared by the SCVWD in 2001 indicated a southeasterly
direction of flow as well. Nitrate used by agricultural operations in the area can impact the groundwater
quality. The highest incidence of nitrates in Gilroy is in Well No. 8 with a Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) of 36 mg/L, still below the threshold of 45 mg/L for drinking water.
Perchlorate contamination from previous manufacturing operations further north has been identified in the
northeastern outskirts of the City, east of Highway 101. The City is actively participating in the
Perchlorate Working Group, along with the SCVWD, Morgan Hill and the County, to restore
groundwater quality in the most expedient, cost-effective manner. The group is also pursuing cost
recovery to ensure that the financial burden for treatment does not rest on the water utility agencies.
Recycled water is treated to a tertiary level at the South County Regional Wastewater Authority
(SCRWA) facility in southeast Gilroy. The SCVWD owns the distribution system. Water is distributed
to five irrigation customers with a combined usage of 700 acre feet per year. Treatment capacity is
projected to reach 15 mgd by 2040 to meet projected demand at build-out of the General Plan.
Water Storage
Current water storage capacity is 14.07 MG, which can supply up to 1.6 days of average daily demand.
The City is in the process of adding an additional 1.42 MG capacity. The 2004 Water Master Plan
includes recommendations, based on build-out conditions, to add an additional 5.3 MG of storage for
Pressure Zone 1 and 0.71 MG storage for Pressure Zone 2 South for higher emergency storage for Zones
1 and 2.
Summary
Gilroy relies on groundwater extracted from the Llagas Sub-Basin; there is no other source of supply.
The City extracted 8,333 acre feet in 2004. Groundwater quality is a growing concern as the groundwater
flows in a south-southeasterly direction under the City and can transfer contaminants generated in areas to
the north. The City is actively working to protect groundwater resources through the Perchlorate
Working Group. The City has addressed its infrastructure needs through its 2004 Water Master Plan,
Capital Improvements Program, and 2000 Urban Water Management Plan.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The City of Gilroy operates its water utility as an enterprise activity, financing it through the Water Fund.
Capital improvements are financed through the Capital Improvement Budget. The following table
summarizes the financial activity in the Water Fund for FY 2002-2003:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 98
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
City of Gilroy – Water Fund FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Revenues $4,586,060 94.51%
Interest $215,927 4.45%
Other Income/Adjustments $50,282 1.04%
Total $4,852,269 100.00%
Expenses - Operations $3,155,124 67.90%
Water Purchases* 0 0%
Admin/Management $1,491,480 32.09%
Dep./Ins./Transfers/Other 0 0%
Total $4,646,604 100.00%
Reserves 0
* SCVWD pump tax
Gilroy uses a rolling five-year financial plan that is updated annually to budget for its services. This gives
the City a long term perspective in planning for services, including water. The City noted in the
introduction to its 2004-2009 Financial Plan that they are projecting increasing financial constraints due
to a number of factors, including the slow-down in the regional economy and exponential increases in
employee benefit costs. However, the primary reason is the impact caused by the State’s reallocation of
local revenues.
The City designates reserves for both operations and depreciation/capital replacement. It was noted in the
introduction to the Financial Plan that the operating reserves of the Water Fund had been virtually
depleted due to cost increases that could not be absorbed through rate increases. The depreciation
reserves were approximately $5.9 million in FY 2003-2004. 5.5% of the Capital Improvements Budget is
allocated to water projects for the five year period covering 2002-2007.
The City of Gilroy has used bonds in the past to finance major infrastructure projects; none of the current
bonds are related to the water system. The City has an AAA credit rating from all of the major credit
raters. The City was audited by an independent auditor in June 2003, and the results were not qualified.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City is actively pursuing cost avoidance opportunities for various aspects of the water delivery
process. For example, it was noted in the introduction to the 2004-2009 Financial Plan that the City had
made significant progress in its efforts to lower electricity costs related to water pumping.
Gilroy’s 2004 Water Master Plan serves as a significant cost avoidance measure. The Plan includes
recommendations for system improvements that will allow the City to implement the projects in a
timeframe that coincides with projected increases in demand. It also includes recommendations that will
allow the City to avoid costly repairs in the future. The Plan includes analysis on the extent to which
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 99
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
projects will benefit existing development or new development, which will enable the City to charge the
appropriate fees when service is extended to new developments.
Reducing potable demand is an effective cost-avoidance measure, and the City has a comprehensive
conservation program in place.
The Community Services Department utilizes the services of other City departments such as finance,
communications, legal, and the Engineering Division of the Community Development Department to
improve cost efficiency for the water utility.
5. Management Efficiencies
Gilroy manages the water utility with the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 1
Operational 9
Professional/Support 8
Total 18
The City adopted its Water Master Plan in 2004 and the City has adopted its 2000 Urban Water
Management Plan. The Urban Water Management Plan will be updated in 2005 in accordance with the
State’s requirements. The Capital Improvements Plan and budget is projected out to 2023 and reviewed
annually as part of the budget process.
The City is achieving management efficiencies through its service model and a high degree of
coordinated planning with other City departments.
6. Shared Facilities
The City of Gilroy shares facilities with other agencies where appropriate in order to reduce costs and
improve efficiencies. Gilroy is one of the three jurisdictions participating in the South County Joint Area
Plan, a component of the County’s General Plan. The Plan provides the framework for a coordinated
planning effort in the South County.
Gilroy is actively involved in the Perchlorate Working Group, a partnership of the SCVWD, the cities of
Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and the County. The Group’s efforts are directed toward promptly and cost-
effectively restoring groundwater quality in the South County.
As one of the SCVWD’s water retailers, Gilroy partners with the District on water conservation
programs. In addition, the SCVWD manages the groundwater recharge program and facilities for the
benefit of Gilroy and other South County providers.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 100
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
Water supply costs are an ongoing concern for the City. The City pays a pump tax to the SCVWD in
exchange for groundwater recharge services. The City is currently paying the following pump tax rate:
SCVWD: Groundwater = $200/AF
The SCVWD has increased rates for FY 2005-2006 to $215 per acre-foot, which represents a 7.5%
increase rather than the 25% expected earlier in the year. Future rate increases are projected to range
from 6.5% to 7%. The City will factor the SCVWD rate increase into its water rate adjustment for the
next fiscal year. The City noted that it has asked the SCVWD to develop long-term rate projections that
fully consider the issues and associated costs for water supply, water quality, and infrastructure in the
South County so that the City can undertake long-range fiscal planning for its water utility.
Demand Rates
Gilroy uses a multi-tiered rate structure to promote water conservation. Account types include residential,
seniors, commercial/industrial, and irrigation. Accounts within the two hillside pressure zones pay a
higher rate to cover the increased cost for pumping; this price differential was implemented on July 1,
2004. Customers pay a meter charge as well as a usage charge.
The rate tiers are based on 1,000 gallon units of measurement. The first tier is through 5,000 gallons per
month; the second is through 15,000, and the third is through 30,000. The fourth tier is anything above
30,000. Irrigation-only customers have two tiers (less than and over 30,000 gallons); they pay the same
rates as residential users at those tiers.
For purposes of comparison, this report uses the rates for a standard residential customer using a ¾” meter
and 500 gallons a day, or 20 CCF (14,961 gallons) per month. The monthly bill for a Gilroy customer
would be $22.28 (5 @ $0.71 + 10 @ $1.39 + $4.83 meter charge = $22.28).
Water service to connections outside the City’s boundaries is charged at twice the normal rate. The City
noted that there are four accounts in this category: one domestic, two manufacturing/industrial, and one
irrigation.
The City uses a rolling five-year rate analysis to determine required rate increases on an annual basis.
Rates have increased approximately 24% over the past three fiscal years, primarily due to the increased
pump tax and increased electricity costs. Annual rate increases are projected for the foreseeable future.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 101
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
8. Government Structure Options
The City of Gilroy operates its water utility through the Operations Division of the Community Services
Department. Other City departments provide related services, such as finance, legal, planning,
engineering and fire.
The City’s Urban Service Area is not coterminous with the boundaries of its incorporated area. There are
portions of incorporated area that are not served by the City’s water system as well as unincorporated
areas that are. The City noted that it serves four accounts outside the City’s boundaries. The law
requiring out-of-agency agreements and approval by LAFCo was enacted in 1994; services existing prior
to 1994 do not require LAFCo review and approval. Santa Clara LAFCo has approved two of these
agreements for Gilroy, one in 1997 and another in 2000.
There are no other retail public water agencies in the area. No other government structure options were
noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
Gilroy provides some information related to its water service and conservation on the City’s website
(www.ci.gilroy.ca.us). The City’s annual 2003 Water Quality Report is available to the public on the City’s
web page and in the Community Services Department.
Gilroy has a seven-member City Council. The water utility is addressed by the Council during regular
meetings. Council members are elected at large to serve staggered four-year terms. The Council meets
the first and third Monday of each month at 7:00 PM. Meeting notices are posted in the City’s offices as
well as on the website.
The City has protocols and procedures in place to ensure that standards for local accountability and
governance are met, including public notice of council meetings and actions as well as water service
information.
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
Gilroy had an estimated population of 45,000 in 2003. The City projects its annual growth rate to be
2.8% to reach a population of 65,082 in 2020. ABAG estimated Gilroy’s population at 53,500 in 2005
with an annual growth rate of 1% to reach 66,400 by 2030.
The City has planned for growth and development through its 2020 General Plan, 2004 Water Master
Plan and 2000 Urban Water Management Plan.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Gilroy relies on groundwater extracted from the Llagas Sub-basin through eight wells in the valley floor.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 102
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
Groundwater quality is a concern as groundwater flows from the north in a south-southeasterly direction
under the City. Perchlorate contamination has been identified at the northeastern edge of the City.
The City plans for infrastructure needs through its 2004 Water Master Plan and CIP program. For FY
2004-2005, the CIP has budgeted $683,612 for water system projects and $5.6 million for water
development projects.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Gilroy operates its water utility as an enterprise activity such that revenues are expected to cover all costs
related to water service.
The City maintains reserves for operations and depreciation; the operating reserves have been depleted
due to cost increases that could not be covered through rate increases.
The City uses a 5-year rolling Financial Plan, which provides the benefits of long-term financial planning.
The City is facing increasing financial constraints due to cost increases that may affect the water utility.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City’s 2004 Water Master Plan provides recommendations and benefit analysis to ensure the timely
implementation of system improvements and appropriate cost allocations.
5) Management Efficiencies
Gilroy is achieving management efficiencies for its water utility through its service model and planning
efforts. The 2004 Water Master Plan will provide significant benefits in terms of planning for future
improvements and capitalizing on opportunities to maximize efficiency.
6) Shared Facilities
Gilroy shares facilities with other agencies where appropriate to benefit its water utility service, such as
groundwater recharge and conservation programs provided by the SCVWD and recycled water produced
at the SCRWA facility.
The City is an active participant in the Perchlorate Working Group whose focus is to restore groundwater
quality in South County.
7) Rate Restructuring
Gilroy uses a tiered rate structure to promote water conservation. The rate structure includes incremental
rate increases for customers in the hillside pressure zones to cover increased pumping costs.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 103
City Water Agencies: City of Gilroy
The City adjusts its water utility rates annually based on budget projections.
The expected increase in the pump tax imposed by the SCVWD represents a significant challenge to the
City in their ability to moderate future rate increases.
8) Government Structure Options
Gilroy’s water utility is operated by the Community Services Department. Other departments within the
City are used to accomplish such tasks as finance, planning, engineering and fire protection, and
information technology for system operations. No other government structure options were noted.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The City of Gilroy ensures that local accountability and governance standards are met through the
oversight provided by the City Council. The water utility is addressed during City Council meetings and
information is available to the public through the City’s website and in printed form.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 104
City Water Agencies: City of Milpitas
B. CITY OF MILPITAS
Overview
The City of Milpitas is located in the northeastern portion of Santa Clara County adjacent to Alameda
County. The City was incorporated in 1954 and originally relied on imported water from SFPUC for its
potable supply. In 1993, the City began purchasing treated water from the SCVWD primarily for use in
commercial and industrial areas. The water system is managed by the City of Milpitas Public Works
Department. Currently, the Department provides water to 64,000 residents with a water service area that
encompasses 13.6 square miles. The City is a member agency of BAWSCA.
1. Growth and Population
The City of Milpitas has an estimated population of 64,000 residents. The City’s General Plan projects a
population at build-out in 2020 of 76,406 based on current land use designations, which represents a 19%
increase. According to its Urban Water Management Plan, the City has grown at an average annual rate
of 3.8% in the last 20 years, which is significantly higher than the region’s average growth rate. ABAG’s
2005 projections estimate Milpitas population at 65,500 in 2005 with an annual growth rate of 1.6% to
reach 91,400 in 2030. The General Plan was updated in 2002 to incorporate the Midtown Specific Plan,
and included the addition of several new land use categories with increased density. In 2002, projections
on citywide land availability included 3,747 acres and 88 potential units in the hillside area and 4,370
acres and 974 potential dwelling units in the valley. Water demand is expected to increase consistent with
population growth. The City currently provides service to the following connection types:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 13,773 91%
Manufacturing/Industrial/Commercial 970 6%
Recycled 135 1%
Irrigation 320 2%
Total 15,198 100%
The City of Milpitas is divided into two distinct geographic areas: valley floor and hillside.
The predominant land use within the City is residential. It should be noted that the valley floor within
Milpitas’ incorporated boundaries is almost fully urbanized. The adoption of the Midtown Specific Plan
and its related changes in residential density reflect the City’s intention to guide future development
within the City’s core. Given the rapid growth throughout the region, it is expected that future
development would occur within city boundaries through redevelopment and changes in land use.
The City has addressed the projected increase in population and impact on water service through its
General Plan and Urban Water Management Plan.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 105
City Water Agencies: City of Milpitas
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Milpitas completed its Water Master Plan in 2002, which addresses the present and future water system
infrastructure needs based on projected demand. The City’s water system infrastructure is comprised of
the following:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 198 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 5
Total Water Storage Volume 50 AF ( 16.3 MG)
Pump Stations 5
Wells 2
Total Well Pumping Capacity 1.8 MGD
Pressure Zones 5
The potable water distribution system consists of four turnouts, 14 pressure regulator valves, four pump
stations, five reservoirs, and two wells. An additional well is planned for completion in the next few
years. Water is distributed to five different pressure zones using pumps and pressure reducing systems.
Recycled water is provided by the South Bay Recycling Plant; the recycled distribution system includes
11 miles of main and 87 connections.
The potable system has three emergency water supply interties, two with Alameda County Water District
to the north and one with the San Jose Water Company to the south. The City’s two wells operate with a
combined capacity of 3.4 MGD; they are used for peaking and emergency supply.
The five storage tanks are either in good condition or being retrofitted in FY 2004-2005. Total storage is
16.3 MGD or 150% of current Average Day Demand but less than one day’s supply at Maximum Day
Demand. No additional storage projects are planned in the near future.
The City is undergoing a long-term replacement program for aging pipelines and has a goal to replace 50
water line segments in FY 2004-2005. The City’s FY 2004-2005 approved budget includes funding of
$110,000 for hydrants and meters and $467,591 in its capital budget for water improvement projects. In
addition, the City’s 2003-2008 CIP includes construction of various water related projects including
completion of a well upgrade program, water system air relief valve modifications, Ayer Reservoir and
Pump station Improvements (including seismic), the South Milpitas Water Line Replacement, and
miscellaneous minor water projects.
According to past balance sheets, CIP projects have accounted for less than 10% of the overall expenses.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 106
City Water Agencies: City of Milpitas
The City noted in the Final Adopted Budget for FY 2004-2005 that it had completed its Water System
Security Vulnerability Assessment in FY 2003-2004, a critical assessment to ensure the future integrity of
the water system.
Water Demand
Existing and build-out water demand within Milpitas is as follows:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand (2003/4) 10.4 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand (2003/4) 19.6 MGD
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) 15.0 MGD
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand * 28.3 MGD
* Based on Max Day Factor of 1.88 and 2020 AAD
In FY 2001-2002, residential customers accounted for 83% of the service connections and 41% of the
total water demand. Using the same percentages for FY 2002-2003, residential demand equals 4.26
MGD, or 310 gallons per day per connection.
Water Supply
The City’s water supply is treated surface water provided by SFPUC (55%) and the SCVWD (40%). The
remaining 5% is recycled water provided by South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR). The City only has two
operating wells which are used for emergency purposes. The City is also actively researching additional
opportunities to increase the use of recycled water.
The City does not provide any water treatment or groundwater recharge. All water is pre-treated by the
wholesaling agencies and the City pays a groundwater pump tax to the SCVWD to cover recharge
services.
Milpitas’ current and contractual water supply is as follows:
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume Total
(Contractual)
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 5.7 MGD 31.0 MGD 63%
Santa Clara Valley Water District 4.2 MGD 14.4 MGD 30%
Groundwater Wells 0.5 MGD 3.4 MGD 7%
Total 10.4 MGD 48.4 MGD 100%
Although the City has diversified its sources of supply between the two wholesalers, it is still
vulnerable to shortages caused by successive dry years. The City’s 2002 Urban Water
Management Plan states:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 107
City Water Agencies: City of Milpitas
“Although the City has planned for adequate supplies to meet demands through 2020, the
City will be impacted by drought shortages. During drought periods, water wholesalers
will not have supplies to meet demands, and some form of water allocation may be
anticipated.”
This allocation for periods of limited supply is applicable to agencies throughout SFPUC’s
service area, and has been addressed by the agencies through BAWSCA.
Water Storage
Adequate water storage is not a significant concern for the City of Milpitas. Current storage capacity is
16.3 MG, which is 150% of the Average Daily Demand. In addition, groundwater wells can be
considered an additional water storage facility in the event of an emergency. No new water storage
facilities are planned for the future, although the CIP includes $200,000 in funding for reservoir
evaluation and upgrades in FY 2004-2005.
Summary
Overall, the City has adequate supply to meet the current and projected demands for its service area. It
does rely heavily on imported water, although it is evaluating options to increase groundwater availability
for emergency use. The City has an ongoing capital improvements program to address aging
infrastructure and other infrastructure needs.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The City operates the water utility as an enterprise activity. The following table summarizes the financial
activity in the Water Fund for FY 2002-2003, per the audited statement of revenues, expenditures and
reserves.
City of Milpitas – Water Fund FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales $10,746,080 94%
Other Revenue $685,920 6%
Total $11,432,000 100%
Expenses - Operations $1,372,652 11%
Water Purchases* $6,685,138 52%
CIP Projects $1,195,000 9%
Admin/Management $842,341 7%
Dep./Ins./Transfers/Other $2,706,770 21%
Total $12,801,901 100%
Reserves $240,000 2% of Revenue
* Purchases from SFPUC and SCVWD
The City has four funds that are related to water service: Water Fund, Water CIP Fund, Water Line
Extension Fund, and Recycled Water Fund. Operational fund transfers are used to cover expenditures
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 108
City Water Agencies: City of Milpitas
included in the budgets of other funds. The Final Adopted Budget for FY 2004-2005 includes a transfer
of $3,023,103 from the Water Fund to the General fund to cover expenses related to water bill collections,
fire department, planning department, financing, and customer support services rendered by other
departments of the City.
As an enterprise activity, revenues generated by water sales are expected to cover the costs associated
with the water utility service. The Department develops its own internal budget projections and adjusts
fees accordingly on an annual basis. The City operates its water utility using a “pay as you go” approach,
using reserves to finance capital improvement projects. Improvement projects are initiated when
adequate funding has been accumulated. The City appears to maintain a relatively low level of reserves
given this approach. In the event of an emergency construction project, the aggregate water funds may
not have adequate reserves available and the City would be forced to find alternative funding sources.
The City has an AA credit rating. As of August 2004, the City had no outstanding bonds or debt related
to water service. In the State Controller’s Report for FY 2001-2002, the only long term debt identified for
Milpitas is $8.61 million for technology. The last audit was completed by Maze and Associates in June,
2003 and the results were not qualified.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City is actively utilizing cost avoidance and cost savings opportunities for various aspects of the
water delivery process. The most recent measure noted by the City was the development of a Geographic
Information System (GIS) inventory of pipelines and other infrastructure. The GIS database can be used
to archive record drawings and store historical maintenance/leaks/breaks for each facility. The
information can be integrated into both hydraulic modeling software and asset management software.
Field operations staff is able to access the database in the field using hand-held computers. This
accessibility allows staff to quickly identify pipeline locations, sizes, materials and system configurations.
In addition to the use of technology, the City has an ongoing preventative maintenance program for aging
pipelines, reservoirs and pump stations. One of the program goals includes the replacement of 50 pipeline
segments each year. The City did not identify how they prioritize replacement projects, but the evaluation
likely consists of a combination of age, pressure capacity, and history of breaks or leaks. Development
and utilization of a hydraulic model would also assist in identifying necessary pipeline replacement areas.
5. Management Efficiencies
The City’s Department of Public Works manages the water utility with the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 6
Operational 6
Professional/Support 2
Total 14
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 109
City Water Agencies: City of Milpitas
Included under Management/Administration are four employees that assist with finances, budgets, meter
reading and customer support. When engineering, design or inspection work is required beyond the
capabilities of in-house staff, the City uses consultants as necessary.
The City uses performance indicators for each department, which are evaluated annually. For utility
maintenance, the following measurements are tracked: customer service requests, underground locate
requests, alarm response, water meters set and repaired and water lines repaired.
In the Final Adopted Budget for FY 2004-2005, the City noted that in FY 2003-2004 interim Water
Distribution Certifications had been obtained for the entire Utilities staff. The objectives for FY 2004-
2005 include obtaining permanent certifications for the staff as well as revising all standard operating
procedures related to utility maintenance.
The City tracks customer complaints annually. There were 311 registered complaints in 2003. 156 of the
complaints were reports of water leaks, of which 129 were responded to by city crews. Low Pressure
(14%), Color (8%), Air Bubbles (7%), No Water (7%) and Odor (5%) were the top five non-leak related
complaints by customers. It was noted that air bubbles and odor problems in November and December
were due to SFPUC malfunctions or repairs.
The City uses planning documents to guide operations and system improvements. Its Water Master Plan
was completed in 2002. Their Urban Water Management Plan was completed in 2000 and will be
updated in 2005.
6. Shared Facilities
Milpitas participates in water conservation programs sponsored by the SCVWD. The SCVWD
administers a program consisting of water use surveys, water-wise schools, and youth poster contests
along with five other residential and five commercial programs.
The City has emergency water interties with both Alameda County Water District to the north and the San
Jose Water Company to the south. These jointly-owned and maintained connections provide as-needed
emergency water to pass between agencies.
Milpitas has purchasing agreements with SFPUC, SCVWD and the South Bay Water Recycling program.
The City is also a member of BAWSCA, participating in the regional coordination that occurs through
that association.
Milpitas is not a signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s Memorandum of
Understanding regarding urban water conservation but the City does implement all 14 Best Management
Practices through its partnership with SCVWD.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 110
City Water Agencies: City of Milpitas
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The City is expecting water supply rates from SFPUC and SCVWD to continue to increase significantly
over time, which will result in rate increases for its water customers. The City sees this as one of its most
significant challenges in the next few years.
Demand Rates
Milpitas uses a two-tier residential rate structure and higher rates for irrigation use to promote water
conservation. The unit rate increases from $1.29 to $2.71 per billing unit for water usage over 20 units
within a bi-monthly billing period. (A unit of water is equivalent to 100 cubic feet, or 748 gallons of
water.) In addition to the water usage rate, there is also a fixed meter charge based on the meter size.
Meter rates increase according to size. A ¾-inch residential water meter is charged $17.37 bi-monthly.
Using year 2000 per capita demand of approximately 78 gallons-per-day (GPD) and an estimated 3.1
residents per home, average residential demand was only 9.7 CCF per month. The City’s average per
capita demand is 86 GPD and the average residential use is 26 CCF for a two month period.
For purposes of comparison, this report uses the rates for a standard residential customer using a ¾” meter
and 500 gallons a day, or 20 CCF (14,961 gallons) per month. The monthly bill for a Milpitas customer
would be $48.69 (20 @ $1.29 + 20@ $2.71+ $17.37)/2.
Rate adjustments are made annually through a public hearing process. The Financial Master Plan
completed in April 2003 provides the basis for the increased rates. The Plan includes a “pay-as-you-go”
approach therefore rates are adjusted as needed to meet current CIP and financial needs. The City is
working to increase reserve levels for future CIP needs. Rates increased 7% in FY 2002-2003, another
13.3% in FY 2003-2004, and 12% in FY 2004-2005. An addition 20% increase is planned over the next
two years. These increases reflect the increased cost of wholesale water as well as general cost increases
associated with utility operations and maintenance.
8. Government Structure Options
Milpitas’ water utility is operated by the City’s Public Works Department. Other City departments such
as Finance, Legal, Planning and Fire provide related services. No other government structure options
were noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
Milpitas provides information pertaining to water service on the City’s website (www.ci.milpitas.ca.us),
including water conservation and water reuse. The City prepared and published their annual 2003 Water
Quality Report in June 2004. The report is available at the City as well as online. The annual financial
reports and budgets are also posted on the website.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 111
City Water Agencies: City of Milpitas
The water utility is addressed by the City Council during Council meetings. Council members are elected
at large to serve staggered, four-year terms. The Council meets the first and third Tuesday of each month
at 6:00 PM. Meeting agendas are advertised the Friday prior to the meeting. Agendas and minutes are
posted on the City website.
The City is meeting the required standards for local accountability and governance, with public notice of
council meetings and actions.
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
Milpitas currently has a population of 64,000 and a historic annual growth rate of 3.8%; population in
2020 is projected to be 76,406 per current land use designations. ABAG estimated Milpitas’ population
at 65,500 in 2005 with an annual growth rate of 1.6% to reach 91,400 by 2030.
The City has two distinct geographic areas, and based on land availability, there is the potential for 974
additional residential units in the valley and 88 in the hillside area.
The City has planned for growth and development through its General Plan, Water Master Plan and
Urban Water Management Plan.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Milpitas relies primarily on treated surface water for its supply. Two groundwater wells provide as-
needed peaking and emergency supply.
Recycled water is supplied by the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant through the South
Bay Water Recycling program. Demand for recycled water is increasing.
The current CIP is primarily focused on system maintenance and replacement of aging facilities.
Existing water storage capacity is adequate by industry standards and the existing wells can provide for
additional emergency supply in the event of a service interruption for treated surface water.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Milpitas operates its water utility as an enterprise activity and manages a balance between the costs
associated with water purchases, CIP projects and operations. Improvements are made on a “pay as you
go” basis with no outside financing or loans.
The City maintains relatively low reserve levels for the water utility which may have a negative impact in
the event of an emergency construction need. A financial master plan identified phased rate increases to
increase reserves.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 112
City Water Agencies: City of Milpitas
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
Milpitas has adopted the use of technology to help inventory and manage their water facilities. A GIS
database has been created and is being utilized by field crews on a regular basis to identify pipeline
locations and features.
The majority of CIP projects over the next five years pertain to replacements, upgrades and modifications
to improve existing facilities, effectively resulting in preventative maintenance and potential cost
avoidance in the event of a failure.
5) Management Efficiencies
The City’s Public Works Department maintains a series of performance indicators with established goals
and tracks them annually. Customer complaints are tracked monthly by complaint type. Outside
consultants are used for technical and/or professional services as-needed to minimize full-time staff.
6) Shared Facilities
Milpitas is a member agency of BAWSCA and is a partner with the SCVWD for implementation of water
conservation measures. The City jointly operates several water turnout facilities and is a stakeholder in
the South Bay Water Recycling Program.
7) Rate Restructuring
Milpitas uses a two-tier residential rate structure and higher rates for irrigation use to promote water
conservation.
The expected increase in the cost of treated water from both SFPUC and the SCVWD represents a
significant challenge to the City in terms of its ability to moderate future rate increases.
Milpitas adjusts its water rates annually based on internal budget projections.
8) Government Structure Options
The water utility is a division of the City of Milpitas’s Public Works Department. The water utility
division utilizes other departments within the City to accomplish such tasks as finance, planning, fire
protection, and information technology for operation of the utility. No other government structure options
were noted.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The City of Milpitas ensures local accountability and governance through the oversight and management
provided by the City Council. The water utility is addressed during City Council meetings. The City
provides a substantial amount of water conservation and recycling information to its residents.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 113
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
C. CITY OF MORGAN HILL
Overview
The City of Morgan Hill is located in the southern portion of Santa Clara County, between the Coyote
Valley area and unincorporated San Martin. The City encompasses approximately 12 square miles with a
population of nearly 35,000. The water utility is managed by the City’s Public Works Department. The
City relies on groundwater as its only source of supply, and groundwater quality is a serious issue. The
City has experienced high nitrate levels in two of its wells and perchlorate contamination in three.
Growth within the City and surrounding jurisdictions is projected to be strong through 2020.
1. Growth and Population
The City of Morgan Hill currently has an estimated population of 34,918 within a 12 square mile area. Its
sphere of influence extends from north of Cochrane Road southward to San Martin. The City adopted a
long-term Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 1996 as a growth management measure. The principal
goals of Morgan Hill’s UGB are to ensure compact growth patterns and infill development, enabling the
City to provide and maintain urban infrastructure in a cost-effective manner. The City is in the process of
updating its Urban Limit Line and Urban Growth Boundary and is currently conducting public meetings
on the issue.
The City is projecting a population of 48,000 in 2020, which represents an average annual growth rate of
2%. ABAG estimates that Morgan Hill’s population is 41,000 in 2005, increasing to 50,000 by 2030 with
a 0.9% annual growth rate. In 1990 Morgan Hill voters approved Measure P which extends the City’s
“Residential Development Control System” to 2010. This measure allows a limited number of homes to
be built each year according to a point system based on a variety of factors. In March 2004, voters
approved Measure C which extends the core provisions of Measure P through 2020.
In recognition of the dynamics within the South County region, Morgan Hill has incorporated an
additional element into its General Plan entitled “Regional Coordination.” The City is aware that
continued development both to the north and the south of its sphere of influence could heavily influence
future growth, traffic and quality of life in Morgan Hill, including water service. The goals of the element
are as follows:
1) Balanced urban growth in the South County
2) Limited, appropriate urbanization of unincorporated San Martin area
3) Efficient, phased development of Coyote Valley
4) Effective, stable growth of the South County
5) An effective, productive South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 114
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
The City currently provides service to the following connection types:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 9,861 89%
Manufacturing/Industrial/Commercial 757 7%
Irrigation 484 4%
Recycled NA
Total 11,102 100%
Morgan Hill has 21,700 acres within its planning area, and less than 3,400 acres were developed with
residential, commercial or industrial uses as of 2001. Per the City’s 2001 General Plan, the urban land
use designations are allocated as follows:
Percent of
Urban Land Use Designation Acres
Total
Residential 4,998 72%
Commercial/Mixed Use 564 8%
Industrial 1,156 17%
Public Facilities 253 3%
Total 6,971 100%
The City has addressed the impact on water service from growth and the projected increase in population
in its 2001 General Plan, 2002 Water Master Plan and 2001 Urban Water Management Plan.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Morgan Hill’s water system is comprised of the following:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 160 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 11
Total Water Storage Volume 9.48 MG
Pump Stations 10 (booster)
Wells 15
Total Well Pumping Capacity 12.9 MGD
Pressure Zones 18
The City adopted its Water Master Plan in 2002. The Plan provides for system improvements based on
projected growth and increased demand. The Master Plan used the City’s General Plan as the basis for
the system requirements analysis. Recommendations were made for improvements to supply and storage
capacity. Those that are related to future growth will be implemented when development occurs and
capacity is needed. Recommendations include the following:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 115
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
• Supply Capacity: construct 4 new wells by 2020, increasing capacity by 5.7 MGD. Capacity will
be needed at the following levels: 2005 – 14.3 MGD, 2010 – 15.8 MGD, 2015 – 17.2 MGD, and
2020 – 18.7 MGD.
• Storage Capacity: increase capacity by 3.25 MG over five pressure zones.
The Master Plan includes a recommended Capital Improvement Program based on the findings and
recommendations of the study.
The City noted several infrastructure improvements that are either planned or in the process of being
implemented. Projects include two new wells to be constructed in FY 2005-2006. The City is also
constructing a new 1.0 MG storage reservoir in FY 2004-2005. The five year budget also includes
funding for new water mains, booster pump rehabilitation, well rehabilitation, water main replacement,
and polybutylene service replacement.
Water Demands
Existing and build-out water demands within Morgan Hill are as follows:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Day Demand 6.8 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand* 13.2 MGD
Existing Peak Demand Capacity 14.5 MGD
Build-Out Average Day Demand (2020) 9.3 MGD
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand (2020) 18.6 MGD
Per the 2002 Water Master Plan, Morgan Hill has experienced a range of per capita consumption rates in
the past. This is expressed as “gallons per capita per day” (GPCD). The high was 216 GPCD in 1985
and the low was 171 gpcd in GPCD. The City currently uses a rate of 200 GPCD for its planning. Using
an estimated household size of 3.46 persons per ABAG projections, the daily demand per residential unit
is 692 gallons.
Water Supply
Morgan Hill’s current and contractual water supply is as follows:
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume Total
(Contractual)
Groundwater 7,730 AF NA 100%
Total 7,730 AF NA 100%
Volume produced per SCVWD records for Calendar Year 2003
Morgan Hill overlies the Llagas Sub-basin and shares this groundwater resource with the other water
providers in the South County. Groundwater is the sole source of domestic supply as the City has no
inter-connections to other systems. The City operates 15 wells on the valley floor, treating the water at
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 116
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
the wellhead prior to distribution. Groundwater recharge is performed by the SCVWD, and the City pays
a pump tax to cover its share of those costs.
Morgan Hill is at the northern end of the Llagas Sub-basin, and the groundwater flow is believed to be in
a south-southeasterly direction towards San Martin and Gilroy. Surrounding agricultural land use and
previous manufacturing operations in the area have impacted groundwater quality, as has the continued
use of septic systems outside the Urban Service Area boundaries. Septic systems and agriculture are
known to increase nitrate levels in groundwater. The City has two wells where nitrates have been
identified; one uses blended water to keep levels below the maximum allowable level for drinking water
quality. The other well exceeds the limits and has been placed in a standby position.
Perchlorate contamination from previous manufacturing operations in the area has been identified in
several of the City’s wells. Two wells now operate with ion exchange perchlorate removal systems. The
City is actively participating in the Perchlorate Working Group, along with the SCVWD, Gilroy and the
County, to restore groundwater quality in the most expedient, cost-effective manner. The group is also
working for cost recovery to ensure that the financial burden for treatment does not rest on the water
utility agencies.
Recycled water is not presently available in Morgan Hill as it is not cost effective to deliver it into the
City from the South County Regional Wastewater Authority treatment plant in northern Gilroy.
Water Storage
Prior to construction of a new 4.0 MG reservoir in 2002, the City noted that it did not meet national
standards for water storage capacity with only a one day supply. Another new reservoir will add an
additional 1.0 MG of capacity; construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2004-2005. The 2002 Water
Master Plan includes recommendations, based on Year 2020 conditions, to add an additional 2.25 MG of
storage for four pressure zones in addition to the 1.0 MG reservoir to be constructed in FY 2004-2005.
Summary
Morgan Hill relies on groundwater extracted from the Llagas Sub-Basin and has no connections to other
systems or sources of supply. The City extracted 7,730 acre feet in 2003. Groundwater quality is a
concern; the city has nitrate issues on two of its wells and perchlorate contamination in several. The City
is actively working to protect its groundwater resource including participation in the Perchlorate Working
Group. The City is correcting its storage deficiency through the construction of a new reservoir. Morgan
Hill has addressed its infrastructure needs through its 2002 Water Master Plan, Capital Improvements
Program, and 2001 Urban Water Management Plan.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The City of Morgan Hill finances its water utility operation through three funds: Water Operations,
Meter Reading/Repair, and Water Conservation. Major capital improvements are financed through the
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 117
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
Water Capital Expenditure Fund (AB 1600) and the Water Replacement Fund. The following table
summarizes the financial activity in the Water Operations Fund for FY 2003-2004:
City of Morgan Hill – Water Operations Fund FY 2003-2004 Financial Summary
Revenue - Service Charges $5,783,350 86%
Fees $851,979 13%
Other Revenue (Interest) $22,320 1%
Total $4,850,745 100%
$6,612,649
Expenses - Operations
Water Purchases* $1,332,666 20%
Admin/Management
Dep./Ins./Transfers/Other $344,112 5%
Total $6,750,737 100%
Reserves $1,223,635 19% of revenue
* SCVWD pump tax
The Water Operations budget includes an annual $400,000 transfer to the Street Maintenance fund. This
covers the costs of street repairs due to water system repairs. (It is also a mechanism used by some
jurisdictions to fund street maintenance due to limited other funding options.) The FY 2004-2005 budget
also includes a $20,000 transfer to the General Fund to cover general administrative services.
Morgan Hill has used bonds to finance major water infrastructure projects. The City has an AAA credit
rating from Standard and Poor’s for its refinanced, insured Certificates of Participation (Water System
Improvement Projects) Series 1999. In 2003 the City refinanced a 1993 loan made by the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority. That loan originated as a refinancing of an original
1980 loan from the State.
The City was audited by an independent auditor for FY 2002-2003. The audit results were not qualified
in any way.
The City noted in the introduction to the Guide to the Sustainable Budget Strategy that long-term
structural changes were needed to bring the City’s budget into balance as the current level of spending on
basic city services was not sustainable. Reserves have been used to maintain levels of service across the
city. In the FY 2004-2005 budget, $1.7 million in reserves will be used even after $900,000 in permanent
reductions in the City’s General Fund budget. The City is looking at opportunities to add additional
revenue although specifics were not identified.
The State’s budget act of 2004 significantly changed how local revenues are allocated. Cities within
California are required to contribute to the State’s General Fund in both FY 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 118
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
Morgan Hill’s estimated contribution in the first year is approximately $342,961. The impact of this
reduction in revenue will likely affect all city departments, including the water utility.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City is actively pursuing cost avoidance opportunities in all areas, including the water utility. The
City adopted a Sustainable Budget Strategy in the spring of 2004 to proactively address the financial
constraints that were projected for the next several fiscal years. As a part of this strategy, guidelines were
developed to help in the decision making process. One of the guidelines stressed that critical services
would be preserved to the greatest extent possible and less critical services would be reduced first. For
the water utility, the two areas that are considered “less critical” are the landscaping around water
facilities and raising or establishing blow-offs at dead end water mains. The City recognizes that cost
avoidance is an essential activity at this point.
The City’s 2002 Water Master Plan serves as a significant cost avoidance measure. The Plan includes
recommendations for system improvements that will allow the City to implement the projects in a
timeframe that coincides with projected increases in demand. It also includes recommendations that will
allow the City to avoid costly repairs in the future. The Plan includes analysis on the extent to which
projects will benefit existing development or new development. This analysis allows the City to charge
the appropriate fees when service is extended to new developments.
The Public Works Department utilizes the services and functions of other City departments such as
finance, legal, and planning to improve cost efficiency for the water utility.
5. Management Efficiencies
Morgan Hill manages its water utility with the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 2
Operational 12
Professional/Support 3
Total 17
The City uses performance measurement tools to evaluate the efficiency and productivity of the water
department. The results are included in the annual budget. The City is also in the process of upgrading
its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) which allows staff to remotely monitor
the water storage and delivery system and make adjustments as necessary to maximize efficiency.
The City adopted its Water Master Plan in 2002 and Urban Water Management Plan in 2001. The Urban
Water Management Plan will be updated in 2005 in accordance with the State’s requirements. The City
uses a 20-year planning horizon for its capital improvement program and annually updates a rolling five
year budget.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 119
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
The City is achieving management efficiencies through its service approach and coordinated planning
with other departments.
6. Shared Facilities
The Morgan Hill Public Works Department shares facilities with other agencies where appropriate in
order to reduce costs and improve efficiencies. The City is actively involved in the Perchlorate Working
Group, in partnership with the SCVWD, Gilroy, and Santa Clara County. The group’s focus is to
promptly and cost-effectively restore groundwater quality in South County. The group is also seeking
cost recovery through legal avenues.
Morgan Hill is one of the three jurisdictions participating in the South County Joint Area Plan, a
component of the County’s General Plan. The Plan provides the framework for a coordinated planning
effort in the South County.
The City also partners with the SCVWD on water conservation programs.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
Morgan Hill relies on groundwater and pays a pump tax to SCVWD in exchange for groundwater
recharge services. The pump tax rates increase annually; the City noted that its rate had increased 25%
over the prior year. The City is currently paying the following rate:
SCVWD: Groundwater = $200/AF
Pump tax rates are expected to continue to increase significantly over time, which will result in rate
increases for Morgan Hill water customers. In the spring of 2004, the City adopted a Sustainable Budget
Strategy to proactively address future financial constraints due to lower revenue projections and State-
initiated changes in local revenue allocations. These financial conditions do not provide a cushion for the
City to use reserves to stabilize rates.
Demand Rates
Morgan Hill uses a multi-tiered rate structure to promote water conservation. There are separate rate
structures for accounts in the City and in the unincorporated area. The County residents pay rates that are
approximately 55% higher than those in the City. Low income residents are offered a reduced rate.
The rate tiers are based on billing units, with each unit equal to 748 gallons. The first tier is through 10
units, the second is through 30 units, and the third is anything over 30 units. The City also charges a
monthly base rate.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 120
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
For purposes of comparison, this report uses the rates for a standard residential customer using a ¾” meter
and 500 gallons a day, or 20 CCF per month. The monthly bill for a Morgan Hill city customer would be
$35.50 (10 x $1.01 + 10 x $2.02 + $5.20 base rate = $35.50). Customers also pay a 5% surcharge on total
water fees each month to help offset the cost of perchlorate treatment. If the City recovers some of its
treatment costs through legal action, ratepayers may be reimbursed in the future.
The City increased rates 2% across the board effective January 1, 2005. The increase is part of a series of
increases to occur through 2007 in order to meet the increasing operating costs, capital improvement
needs for the water system, debt service, and perchlorate treatment costs.
8. Government Structure Options
The City of Morgan Hill operates its water utility through the Public Works Department. The Department
uses the services of other city departments as needed for specific functions related to water service, such
as legal, finance and planning.
The City’s Urban Service Area is not coterminous with the boundaries of its incorporated area. There are
portions of incorporated area that are not served by the City’s water system as well as unincorporated
areas that are. The City noted that it serves 211 accounts outside the City’s boundaries. The law
requiring LAFCo approval of out-of-agency agreements was enacted in 1994; services existing prior to
1994 do not require LAFCo review and approval. Water service was provided to properties within the
Holiday Lake Estates area prior to 1994. Aside from Holiday Lake Estates Morgan Hill is providing
service to 130 connections outside its boundaries.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The City of Morgan Hill is governed by a five-member City Council. Council members are elected at
large to serve staggered four-year terms. The water utility is addressed by the Council during regular
meetings. The Council meets the first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 PM in the Council
Chambers. Meeting notices are posted in the City’s offices as well as on the website.
Morgan Hill provides some information related to its water service on the City’s website (www.morgan-
hill.ca.gov). The City’s budget and annual financial reports are also available on line. The City’s annual
2003 Water Quality Report is available to the public on the website or in City offices.
The City is meeting the acceptable standards for local accountability and governance, with public notice
of council meetings and actions as well as water service information.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 121
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
Morgan Hill had an estimated population of 35,000 in 2003. The City projects its annual growth rate to
be 2.0% to reach a population of 48,000 in 2020. ABAG estimated Morgan Hill’s population at 41,000 in
2005 with an annual growth rate of 0.9% to reach 50,000 by 2030.
The City has planned for growth and development through its 2001 General Plan, 2002 Water Master
Plan and 2001 Urban Water Management Plan.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Morgan Hill relies on groundwater extracted from the Llagas Sub-basin through 15 wells in the valley
floor.
Groundwater quality is a concern; nitrates have affected water quality in two wells and perchlorate
contamination has affected several wells, with two currently equipped with ion exchange treatment
systems.
The City plans for infrastructure needs through its 2002 Water Master Plan and CIP program. For FY
2004-2005, the CIP has $1.46 million budgeted for water system projects.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Morgan Hill is facing increasing financial constraints due to cost increases and State budget impacts that
may affect the water utility.
The City has been using reserves at an unsustainable rate to maintain current levels of city services.
The City has adopted a Sustainable Budget Strategy, imposed permanent General Fund budget reductions,
and is considering new revenue sources.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
Morgan Hill actively pursues cost avoidance measures related to water service; it has identified those
services that are considered “less critical” and may be reduced in light of funding constraints.
The City’s 2002 Water Master Plan provides recommendations and benefit analysis to ensure the timely
implementation of system improvements and appropriate cost allocations between current and future
users.
5) Management Efficiencies
Morgan Hill is achieving management efficiencies for its water service through detailed planning and
coordination with other city departments and annually evaluates performance against benchmark goals.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 122
City Water Agencies: City of Morgan Hill
The City uses a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) to improve efficiency in the
water delivery system.
6) Shared Facilities
Morgan Hill shares facilities with other agencies where appropriate to benefit its water utility service,
such as groundwater recharge and conservation programs provided by the SCVWD.
The City is an active participant in the Perchlorate Working Group whose focus is to restore groundwater
quality in South County.
7) Rate Restructuring
Morgan Hill uses a tiered rate structure to promote water conservation. The rate structure includes higher
rates for accounts outside the city.
The City has planned incremental rate adjustments through 2007 to cover increased costs for operations,
capital improvement needs, debt service and perchlorate treatment.
The expected increase in the pump tax imposed by SCVWD represents a significant challenge to the City
in terms of moderating future rate increases.
8) Government Structure Options
Morgan Hill operates the water utility through its Public Works Department. The services of other City
departments are used to accomplish such tasks as finance, planning, fire protection, and legal. No other
government structure options were noted.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The City of Morgan Hill ensures local accountability and governance through the oversight provided by
the City Council. The water utility is addressed during City Council meetings and information is
available to the public on line and in printed form.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 123
City Water Agencies: City of Mountain View
D. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Overview
The City of Mountain View is located in northern Santa Clara County between the cities of Sunnyvale
and Palo Alto. The City of Mountain View Public Works Department manages the water system. The
Department provides water to 72,006 residents in a water service area that encompasses 11.7 square
miles. California Water Service Company (CalWater), a private water purveyor, serves approximately
650 customers within a small southern portion of the City’s service area. The City is a member agency of
BAWSCA.
1. Growth and Population
The City of Mountain View has a current population of 72,006 residents. ABAG estimates that Mountain
View’s population will increase to 89,600 by 2030 with a 1.0% annual growth rate. According to the
City’s 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the city is 97% developed. Water demand is
expected to grow consistent with population growth. Over the past decade, there has been a steady
transition from industrial land uses to mixed use.
The City currently provides service to the following connection types:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 13,421 85%
Manufacturing/Industrial/Commercial 1,572 10%
Irrigation 778 5%
Construction (temporary) 33 <1%
Total 15,804 100
The predominant land use within the City is residential. The manufacturing /industrial/commercial
category reflects the mixed-use transition that has occurred. Land use within the City is not expected to
change significantly over the next twenty years. Population growth will be accommodated through
mixed-use projects and infill development.
The City has addressed the projected increase in population through its General Plan and 2000 Urban
Water Management Plan.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 124
City Water Agencies: City of Mountain View
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Mountain View’s existing water system facilities include the following:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 157.1 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 2
21 AF (6.8 MG)
Total Water Storage Volume
(3 and 18 AF)
Pump Stations 2
Wells 7
Total Well Pumping Capacity 9 MGD
Pressure Zones 3
Pipeline and storage capacity is properly operated to provide fire flows throughout the city. Residential
fire flows are 900 GPM and commercial is 1,500 GPM.
The City is constructing mid-term storage improvements recommended in its 1992 Water Master Plan.
The storage improvements include a 2.3 MG expansion of an existing reservoir and construction of a new
8 MG reservoir.
Water Demands
The City’s1992 Water Master Plan projects that the ultimate demand (2015) would range from 12.9 MGD
to 16.5 MGD. The low range assumes continued water conservation and increased utilization of recycled
water, which appears to be the scenario today. The majority of projects identified in the master plan
involve construction of additional storage facilities.
Existing and build-out water demands within Mountain View are as follows:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand (2003/4) 12.5 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand (2003/4) 21.0 MGD
Existing Peak Demand 22.8 MGD
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) 12.9 to 16.5 MGD
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand * 21.7 MGD
* Based on Max Day Factor of 1.68 and minimum Build-out AAD
In FY 2002, residential customers accounted for 85% of the service connections and 54% of the total
water demand. Using the same percentages for FY 2003, residential demand equals 6.75 MGD, or 503
gallons per day per residence.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 125
City Water Agencies: City of Mountain View
Water Supply
Treated surface water comprises 99% of Mountain View’s water supply. The remaining 1% is from
groundwater. The City plans to increase its groundwater supply for emergency purposes and is actively
researching additional ways to utilize recycled water.
Mountain View’s water service area is divided into three zones. Water delivered by the SFPUC is
supplied to Zones 1 and 2, and water from the SCVWD supplies Zone 3. The available maximum day
volume from the SCVWD is 2.3 MGD. Mountain View’s current and contractual water supply is as
follows:
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume Total
(Contractual)
San Francisco Public Utility Commission 19 MGD 26 MGD 90%
Santa Clara Valley Water District 2.1 MGD 2.3 MGD 9%
Groundwater Wells <1 MGD n/a <1%
Recycled Water 0%
Total 21.1 MGD 37.3 MGD 100%
The City currently self-fluoridates its water supply from the SCVWD and wells. The SFPUC now
fluoridates all of its water at treatment facilities in the East Bay.
Currently, groundwater is used primarily as emergency backup supply. The City is investigating its
operational production constraints for the wells.
Water Storage
Adequate water storage is a concern for the City of Mountain View. Current water storage is 6.8 MG,
which is one-half the average daily demand, and less than the 7.1 MG listed in the 1992 Master plan.
According to a survey conducted as part of the preparation of the 1992 Master Plan, the surrounding
communities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Redwood City and Palo Alto had between 1 and 2
average days worth of storage. Included in the Master Plan is a zone by zone analysis for required storage
using a combination of operational, emergency, and fire flow requirements. The required additional
storage based on typical criteria was 18.2 MG for a total of 25.2 MG.
The City’s CIP includes construction of the Miramonte Reservoir (2.3 MG) and Graham Middle School
Reservoir (7.8 MG). The expected completion date for the Miramonte Reservoir is fall 2005. The Graham
Middle School Reservoir is under construction.
Summary
The City replaces approximately two miles of pipe and 500 water services, appurtenances, gate valves
and fire hydrants per year. Mid-term storage deficiencies will be addressed with the completion of a 2.3
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 126
City Water Agencies: City of Mountain View
MG reservoir expansion and the new 8 MG reservoir. According to the Water Master Plan, the system is
in excellent shape, including operational stability, detailed planning documents and management
strategies and a strong long-term CIP. The City has adopted an aggressive infrastructure replacement
schedule, and has been implementing the recommended CIP projects from the 1992 Master Plan. The
City is also in the process of updating the 1992 Water Master Plan.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The City operates the water utility as an enterprise activity. The following table summarizes the audited
FY 2002-2003 statement of revenues, expenditures and reserves for the Water Fund.
City of Mountain View – Water Fund FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales $13,281,094 85%
Other Revenue $2,259,521 15%
Total $15,540,615 100%
Expenses - Operations $4,467,464 29%
Water Purchases * $5,463,389 35%
CIP Projects $3,424,000 22%
Admin/Management $1,182,150 7%
Dep./Ins./Transfers/Other $1,050,233 7%
Total $15,587,236 100%
Reserves $5,356,930 34% of Revenue
* Purchases from SFPUC and SCVWD
As an enterprise fund, revenue is expected to cover the costs associated with the water utility. The
Department develops its own internal budget projections and adjusts fees accordingly on an annual basis.
The City last conducted a rate study in the mid 1990’s.
The City received an AAA credit rating for completion of the last reservoir project. As of August 2004,
the Water Fund had no outstanding bonds or debt. The City is currently accepting bids to issue a $10.5
million dollar bond to fund the Graham Reservoir Project. This bond will have a 25-year life span.
Approximately $650,000 per year will be used to retire the bonds.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City is actively utilizing cost avoidance and cost savings opportunities for various aspects of the
water delivery process. Four different examples were discussed during the questionnaire and follow up
interview process with the City.
Reservoir storage is a significant need of the City. Considering the large land requirement necessary for a
reservoir and the high land values within the City, an alternative was needed for the facility site. An
agreement is being negotiated between the City and the Mountain View School District to locate a
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 127
City Water Agencies: City of Mountain View
reservoir at the Whisman Middle School. Per the proposed agreement, the City will provide water and
maintenance to the school’s sports fields in exchange for allowing the City to locate a storage facility
under the fields. Such an agreement produces a win-win situation and cost savings for both parties.
Another unique cost saving example is the use of a turbine generator at one of the SFPUC turnouts.
Because the connection point for the imported water has a significantly higher pressure than the City
needs, a pressure reducing station is required. The City has chosen to install a turbine generator that turns
the excess pressure into electricity and feeds it back into the City’s power grid. The results become a cost
credit to the City’s overall power bill.
The Department hires consultants on an as-needed basis for highly technical design or engineering
services. This allows for a fewer staff members, and provides cost savings during slower production
periods.
As part of the recycled water program shared by the surrounding agencies, the City is able to off set
maintenance and infrastructure expenses by cost sharing.
5. Management Efficiencies
The water utility portion of the Department of Public Works operates with the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 4.25
Operational 22.80
Professional/Support 6.95
Total 34.00
Management maintains a series of Performance Measures/Workload Measures for various aspects of the
Public Works Department, including quarterly target numbers for water quality complaints, number of
water main breaks and percent response time standards met for various utility customer service requests
(including Streets and Utilities Maintenance). For 2004, there were 202 customer calls (<110 target) and
6 breaks (<6 target). The majority of customer calls are attributed to one algae bloom that affected the
SFPUC supply.
The latest Urban Water Management Plan was completed 2000 and the required update will be completed
by December 2005. The Water Master Plan was completed in 1992 and the City is currently evaluating
the scope for the next Master Plan.
Mountain View is a signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s memorandum of
Understanding regarding urban water conservation and implements all 14 Best Management Practices
through its partnership with the SCVWD.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 128
City Water Agencies: City of Mountain View
6. Shared Facilities
The City of Mountain View is a partner in operating the Water Reuse Program of the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) located in Palo Alto. Program partners include the cities of Los Altos,
Mountain View, and Palo Alto; the East Palo Alto Sanitary district; and the Town of Los Altos Hills. The
RWQCP is a Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, established in 1980, which produces recycled water
for golf courses, parks, and landscape irrigation. The City of Palo Alto and Mountain View are
evaluating the recycled water potential and have applied for grants to further develop the program.
The City participates in the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) water conservation programs.
SCVWD administers a program that includes water use surveys, washing machine rebates, low flow
toilets, pre-wash spray use nozzle and showerhead aerators.
The City has water interties with both Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. These jointly owned and maintained
connections provide as-needed emergency water to pass between agencies.
Water agency staff often attends safety-training courses in conjunction with other agencies.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The City is expecting water rates from SFPUC and the SCVWD to continue to increase significantly over
time. This cost increase will be reflected in the rates charged to the City’s customers. The City sees this
as one of its most significant challenges.
The cost of water paid by the City for treated surface water and groundwater is as follows:
• SCVWD: Treated water = $495/AF, Groundwater = $405/AF
• SFPUC: Treated water = $492/AF
Demand Rates
Mountain View’s water utility rates are structured as a multi-tier system, based on meter size and water
units consumed per month, in order to promote water conservation. The per-unit rate essentially doubles
for each successive tier. A unit of water is equivalent to 100 cubic feet, or 748 gallons of water. In
addition to the water usage rate, there is also a fixed meter charge based on the meter size.
For a standard residential customer using a ¾” meter and 500 gallons a day (20 units per month), the 2004
monthly bill would be $48.45 (3 @ $1.22 +17 @ $2.40 +$4.10 meter = $48.45).
Water usage charges provide 85% of the total revenue for the utility. It appears based on overall budget
status, that revenue and expenses are currently in balance and that there is not a significant need to
restructure rates other than to keep up with future imported water supply costs. It is expected that rates
will be increasing another 12% over the next two years due primarily to increased water supply costs.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 129
City Water Agencies: City of Mountain View
8. Government Structure Options
The City provides water service to the area within its boundaries, with the exception of the 650
connections served by the California Water Service Company; no other government structure options
were noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The City prepared and published their annual 2003 Water Quality Report in June 2004. The report is
available at the City and on the City’s website (www.ci.mtnview.ca.us).
The City of Mountain View is governed by a five-member City Council. Council members are elected at
large to serve staggered four-year terms. The water utility is addressed by the Council during regular
meetings. The Council meets the second and last Tuesday of each month at 6:30 PM in the Council
Chambers. Meeting agendas are advertised the Friday prior to the meeting.
The City provides a substantial amount of public information on water conservation and water reuse both
published and online.
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
Mountain View is 97% developed with little redevelopment expected in the future.
The City currently has a population of 72,006 and a projected annual growth rate of 0.9%; ABAG is
projecting the City’s population to reach 89,600 by 2030.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Mountain View relies on treated surface water supplied by the SFPUC and the SCVWD; groundwater is
used for emergency supply purposes only.
The City is pursuing a project through the Water Reuse Program of the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant in Palo Alto to provide recycled water in areas of Mountain View.
The City has adopted a CIP and a Water Master Plan and is implementing the recommendations and
projects for infrastructure improvements. The City is in the process of updating its 1992 Water Master
Plan.
Existing water storage capacity is below industry standards. The City is in the process of constructing a
new reservoir and expanding the capacity of an existing reservoir in order to have storage capacity that
will exceed average day demands.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 130
City Water Agencies: City of Mountain View
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Mountain View operates its water utility as an enterprise activity and manages a balance between the
costs associated with water purchases, CIP projects and operations.
The City maintains adequate reserve levels to meet future operating and capital needs.
The City will be incurring a 25-year, long-term debt of $10.5 million by issuing bonds to finance the
Graham Reservoir project.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City is avoiding land acquisition costs associated with a new reservoir by locating the reservoir on
property belonging to the Mountain View School District.
The City is in the process of updating its 1992 Water Master Plan which will provide a plan for future
improvements and rehabilitation in the system. This will provide significant cost avoidance measures.
5) Management Efficiencies
The Department of Public Works maintains a series of performance measures with established goals and
tracks them quarterly.
6) Shared Facilities
Mountain View is one of the five agencies that own and operate the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant, which provides a reliable source of recycled water.
7) Rate Restructuring
Mountain View uses a multi-tiered rate structure that effectively promotes water conservation.
The expected increase in the cost of imported water from both SFPUC and SCVWD represents a
significant challenge to the City in terms of moderating future rate increases.
Mountain View adjusts its water rates annually based on internal budget projections.
8) Government Structure Options
The water utility is a division of the City of Mountain View’s Public Works Department. No other
government structure options were noted.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The City of Mountain View has a process for ensuring that standards for local accountability and
governance are met. The water utility is addressed during City Council meetings.
The City provides a substantial amount of water conservation and recycling information to its water
utility customers.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 131
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
E. CITY OF PALO ALTO
Overview
The City of Palo Alto is located in northern Santa Clara County and is bordered by San Mateo County on
the north, Stanford University to the west, and the City of Mountain View to the east. Purissima Hills
County Water District and the California Water Service Company are to the south. Water service is
provided through the City’s Utilities Department. Palo Alto provides water to 58,598 residents within a
26 square mile service area. The City relies on imported pre-treated water from the SFPUC; system
upgrades are underway to improve the City’s water well storage and distribution system so that
groundwater can serve as a source of domestic supply as well. Recycled water is available from the Palo
Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The City is a member of BAWSCA.
1. Growth and Population
Palo Alto’s estimated population in 2003 was 58,598 residents, excluding Stanford University. The City
experienced a significant increase in population in the late 1990’s due to the expansive growth of the
technology industry throughout the County. ABAG estimates that Palo Alto’s population is 74,000 in
2005 (including the City’s Sphere of Influence). The population is expected to reach 92,200 by 2030 with
an annual growth rate of 1.0%. The City has recently forecasted water needs, including the effects of
changes in the plumbing code and implementation of water efficiency programs for all customer classes.
The results indicate that Palo Alto's potable water demands are expected to remain flat to 2030.
The City currently provides service to the following connection types:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 15,797 81%
Manufacturing/Industrial/Commercial 2,965 15%
Irrigation 781 4%
Total 19,543 100%
Land use within Palo Alto is predominantly single-family residential. Excluding dedicated open space,
Palo Alto is almost completely developed. According to the City’s 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, less
than 1% of the City’s land area consists of vacant, developable land. Future growth will occur primarily
through infill and redevelopment. The impact of growth on the water system and increased demand has
been addressed by the City in its Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Water Management Plan.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 132
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The City’s water system consists of the following components:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 226 Miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 7
Total Water Storage Volume 10.2 MG
Pump Stations 5
Wells 5 standby wells
Total Well Pumping Capacity NP
Pressure Zones NP
NP – not provided
The water utility originated in 1896, two years after the City was incorporated. Water supply was
exclusively groundwater until 1937 when the City signed a 20-year contract with the City and County of
San Francisco. In 1962 another 20-year contract was signed with San Francisco to supply all water and
existing City wells were placed in a standby condition. The current contract was signed in 1984 and
extends through 2009. In 1999 the City conducted the Water Well Regional Storage and Distribution
System Study; the report identified the risks of sole-source water supply and recommended a list of
capital improvement projects including refurbishing the five existing wells and constructing three new
wells. In 2000, the report was expanded to incorporate long-term goals to reduce dependence on SFPUC
water.
The City maintains five turnout locations for SFPUC water. The total capacity of all five turnouts is
40,400 gallons per minute. In 2003, SFPUC changed from chlorine to chloramines system-wide. Palo
Alto was able to successfully implement the necessary system changes and provide public information
and assistance.
As part of the analysis conducted for the City’s groundwater storage and distribution system, the City
identified the need to improve pressure and capacity in Pressure Area 2. The State Department of Health
Services recommends an eight hour minimum emergency demand, in the event of a shutdown of the
SFPUC aqueduct system. The water stored for the area is insufficient in volume and pressure to meet
either maximum day demands or water flows to fight fires throughout Pressure Zone 2. Three new pumps
will be installed at the Mayfield Pump Station to correct this situation. (Stanford University noted that it
can provide backup emergency fire supply for the hospital in the event of inadequate pressure within Palo
Alto’s system.)
The City has completed extensive planning efforts related to its water service. The City has a Water
Master Plan that was adopted in 1992 which provides the framework for system improvements and
expansion.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 133
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto has an extensive Capital Improvements Program that extends through 2009. A majority of
planned projects involve upgrading the groundwater supply system. The projects identified include
upgrading pressure reducing stations, pump stations, and providing water treatment facilities to begin
utilizing groundwater as a continuous source of water. Three new emergency wells are planned and a
new storage reservoir of 2.73 million gallons is not yet complete.
The City has been keeping pace with a 25-year pipeline replacement program starting in 1993. By 2003,
33 of the original 75 miles of identified deficient mains will have been replaced, representing a 44%
completion status, 40% through the program. Each year the projects are evaluated and the highest priority
is given to the most deteriorated portions of the system.
Also included in the CIP are an ongoing meter and hydrant replacement program and continued
development of a system-wide GIS database to complement the City’s Capacity, Management,
Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) program. This will provide a single source for information
indexing and storage.
Water Demand
In 2000, the residential sector accounted for 62% of the total City water sales. The increase in residential
demand over time has been consistent with population growth. Both the industrial and commercial sector
demands decreased overall partly due to water conservation efforts and enforcement of the landscape
irrigation ordinance.
Water conservation has been a primary focus of the City since the 1970’s. Current water demands are
greater than the 1992-3 drought years, but less than the mid 1980’s; they have decreased 20-65% from
1975 to 1995 as a result of “permanent” water conservation measures.
Existing and build-out water demands for Palo Alto are as follows:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand (2000) 14,500 AF/yr (2000 UWMP)
Existing Maximum Day Demand (2003/4) 98.76 AF/Day
Existing Peak Demand NP
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) 16,381 AF/Y (2000 UWMP)
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand NP
* Based on Max Day Factor of 1.68 and minimum Build-out AAD; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 134
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
Water Supply
The following table lists current and contractual water supply:
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume* Total
(Contractual)
San Francisco Public Utility Commission 12.9 MGD 168.8 MGD 99.5%
Recycled Water 0.75 MGD 0.5%
Total 12.9 MGD 168.8 MGD 100.0%
The City depends solely on SFPUC for domestic water supply and has accelerated implementation of the
recommendations in the 1999 study mentioned previously. The City has been proactive in working
internally with alternative analysis and risk assessments related to a loss in SFPUC water, as well as
working through BAWSCA to analyze the needs of the SFPUC system to improve reliability. The City is
also researching available dry-year water transfers from other State Water Project contractors.
The City has five existing wells with a combined total rated capacity of 4,300 GPM. The wells were
constructed nearly 50 years ago and are in need of major repair and upgrades if the City intends to rely on
them for water, either as supplemental daily demand or emergency use. The water quality of the wells is
also substandard and could only be used for emergency supply without treatment to reduce levels of iron,
manganese and total dissolved solids. Well water is currently being treated by adding fluoride, chlorine
and ammonia.
One of the policies included within the City’s Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 is to protect Palo Alto’s
groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. To support this policy, the Plan includes a program
to work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to identify and map key groundwater recharge areas
for use in land planning and permitting and the protection of groundwater resources. Most recharge is
occurring naturally through rainfall.
Recycled water is available from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), which
the City operates. Recycled water use includes 0.5 mgd at the RWQCP for processes replacing potable
water use; 0.07 mgd at Greer Park; 0.17 mgd at the City’s municipal golf course; 0.02 for the duck pond
near the RWQCP; and less than 0.01 mgd for trucked usage (irrigation or dust control).
The City is in the process of developing a Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) that will evaluate all
available supply alternatives. The alternatives examined include increased conservation, recycled water,
connection to the SCVWD’s treated water pipeline, and use of groundwater in droughts or on an ongoing
basis. All alternatives were evaluated for cost, reliability and availability in droughts, enhancement to
emergency preparedness, and water quality impacts. The City has determined that SFPUC supplies are
adequate for normal years, but additional supplies are needed for drought. The WIRP guidelines were
approved by the Council in 2004, and implementation will continue in the next year.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 135
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
Water Storage
The City maintains six water storage tanks, totaling 10.5 million gallons. Five of the six tanks were
constructed in the 1960’s and are rated by the City as in excellent condition. The 4.0 MG in-ground
Mayfield concrete tank was constructed in 1927 and is in good condition. The City is planning to
construct a new 2.43 MG tank in the future. One of the capital projects to be funded in FY 2008-2009
includes the addition of seismic protection systems on the storage tanks to preserve potable water after a
seismic event.
The City’s current storage capacity is equal to 32% of maximum day demand, or 81% of their average
day demand. Existing wells can provide supplemental water in the event of an emergency, but are not
used on a regular basis to meet daily demands. Well water quality is also an issue. With the addition of
2.43 MG of water storage, the City will have storage capacity equivalent to one average day demand.
Summary
The City of Palo Alto is actively upgrading its water distribution system and has accelerated the
implementation of recommendations included in the 1999 Water Wells, Regional Storage, and
Distribution Study. The City is reliant on SFPUC for its domestic supply; however the improvements
being implemented will broaden the sources of supply, increase reliability and reduce the City’s risk in
the event of a service interruption. The majority of planned Capital Improvement Projects involve
upgrading the groundwater supply system. The projects identified include upgrading pressure reducing
stations, pump stations, and providing water treatment facilities to begin utilizing groundwater as a
continuous source of water, effectively supplementing SFPUC water and providing redundancy and
backup supplies in the event of an emergency. The storage capacity of existing water tanks appears to be
below average, but the City is planning to add a new tank. With the inclusion of a reliable groundwater
supply system, the maximum safe yield of the wells will offset the need for additional above ground water
storage in the future.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The City of Palo Alto operates the water utility as an enterprise activity. The following table summarizes
the financial activity in the Water Fund for FY 2002-2003, per the audited statement of revenues,
expenditures and reserves.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 136
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto – Water Fund FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales $17,385,497 92%
Other Revenue $1,556,588 8%
Total $18,942,085 100%
Expenses - Operations $2,694,756 15%
Water Purchases* $6,029,860 34%
CIP Projects $1,959,956 11%
Admin/Management $1,597,515 9%
Rent/Dep./Ins./Transfers/Other $5,566,713 31%
Total $17,848,800 100%
Reserves $6,700,000 35% of Revenue
* Purchases from SFPUC
The last audit was conducted in October 2003. The City has financed utility capital improvements with
bonds in the past and has an AAA credit rating. Current CIP expenditures are financed through user fees
and are built into the water rate structure.
Per the adopted budget for FY 2004-2005, the City is projecting an ending balance in the Water Fund of
$8.71 million and $63.51 million in the Capital Fund (as of June 30, 2005). The City has reserves for the
following (projected as of June 30, 2005):
• Emergency Plant Replacement $1,204,000
• Rate Stabilization $6,728,000
• Debt Service $778,000
The minimum guideline level for Rate Stabilization is $7.1 million. The City has noted the shortfall and a
portion of the current rates are designated to build this reserve.
For FY 2004-2005, efforts to control rate increases resulted in a reduction of capital project expenditures
of $2.2 million. The City will continue to work towards completing these projects.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City is avoiding costs related to water service on a number of levels. The 1999 Water Wells,
Regional Storage and Distribution System Study was fundamental in providing the City with direction
and recommendations on how to improve the system and decrease dependence on SFPUC. The City has
also undertaken another study, the Preliminary Assessment of Water Resources Alternatives, to analyze
all available water supplies. The Long Term Water Supply Study (2000), evaluated costs and operational
issues relating to treatment of well water as a sole water supply. The Water Integrated Resource Plan
includes cost analysis on water sources and system improvements, enabling the City to determine the
most cost-effective approach for water service in normal and drought conditions.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 137
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
The pipeline replacement project is evaluated annually and priorities are re-established to ensure that
pipelines in the most deteriorated portions of the system are replaced first. The City uses a Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) to manage water delivery and pressure. It also has a
comprehensive Geographic Information System and has completed the transfer of all utility maps related
to water, gas and wastewater systems from hard copies to digital.
5. Management Efficiencies
The City of Palo Alto is achieving management efficiencies for water service through the structure and
functions of the Utilities Department. The water service utility is operated with the following staff:
Staff Type Number
Management/Administrative 5
Operational 21
Professional/Support 14
Total 40
Utilities staff is shared across four enterprise utilities: electric, gas, water, and wastewater collection.
The City has a Utilities Strategic Performance Plan which is updated semi-annually. It is used to evaluate
the City’s utilities service in four areas: Customer & Community, Financial, Environment and People
(Staff). Each of the areas has a supporting objective and key strategies. The performance update allows
the City to identify areas of success as well as concern, and take corrective measures.
The City also achieves management efficiencies through its planning documents. The City adopted its
Water Master Plan in 1992 and Urban Water Management Plan in 2000. The Urban Water Management
Plan will be updated in 2005. The Water Integrated Resource Plan includes analysis for the efficient
provision of service.
6. Shared Facilities
Palo Alto shares facilities where appropriate and where it will provide benefit to the City’s water service
utility. The City is a partner in the Water Reuse Program of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP). Program partners include: City of Los Altos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East
Palo Alto Sanitary District, and the Town of Los Altos Hills. The RWQCP is a Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant, established in 1980, and produces recycled water for golf courses, parks, and landscape
irrigation.
The City also partners with the SCVWD on a water conservation program consisting of water use
surveys, washing machine rebates, low flow toilets and showerhead aerators.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 138
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
The City is a signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s Memorandum of
Understanding and currently implements six of the 14 Best Management Practices including:
BMP 3: System Water Audits
BMP 4: Meter Connection and Retrofit Existing
BMP 6: High Efficiently Washing Machines
BMP 7: Public Information Program
BMP 11: Conservation Pricing
BMP 12: Conservation Coordinator
The City has an emergency water intertie with Mountain View which is jointly owned and maintained to
provide as-needed water to pass between agencies. Palo Alto also has a temporary intertie with the
Purissima Hills County Water District.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The City is currently paying the following rates for its water supply:
SFPUC: Treated Water = $471.52/AF
The City is expecting water supply rates from SFPUC to continue to increase significantly over time,
which will result in rate increases for its water customers. The City is working through BAWSCA on this
issue.
Demand Rates
The City evaluates water rates annually with respect to expected costs. Rate levels are established to
cover all costs associated with water service, including capital projects. The City charges for the
commodity but does not charge a meter charge. It has a two-tier structure for residential use. Water rates
were increased 10.3% effective January 1, 2005. Previous rate increases were 10.3% effective July 1,
2004 and 15% effective July 1, 2003. The City noted that increases were the result of a rise in CIP costs,
the wholesale water rate increase enacted by the SFPUC and the need to replenish the Rate Stabilization
Reserve.
The rate structure is divided into three categories: residential, non-residential and irrigation. Only
residential customers have tiered rates depending on usage, effectively encouraging conservation. The
first 7 hundred cubic feet (CCF) is charged at $3.707 per CCF; additional consumption is charged at
$4.025 per CCF. Residential customers account for over 80% of the customer base, so there is not a
significant need to tier other rate categories to encourage conservation.
For a standard residential customer using a ¾” meter and 500 gallons a day, or 20 CCF a month, the
monthly bill would be $78.27 (7 @ $3.707 + 13@ $4.025 = $78.27).
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 139
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
Water usage charges comprise 92% of the total water fund revenue. User rates have increased by 35% in
the past two years and there is an expected additional 25% increase over the next two years.
Many agencies currently importing water from SFPUC are well aware of the financial burden they will be
faced with in 2009 when the contract renegotiations occur. In the case of Palo Alto, water purchases from
SFPUC account for only 35% of total Water Fund expenses. Based on FY 2002-2003 financial
information, the cost of water from SFPUC could double and the overall expenses to the City would only
increase by 34%.
8. Government Structure Options
Palo Alto’s Utilities Department uses the functions of other departments within the City to accomplish
annual or specialty tasks. This provides an efficient use of available resources and allows the utility to
maintain a smaller administrative and management staff. The Rate Department (Finance), Public
Relations, Utility Marketing Services, Engineering, and Resource Management are utilized for portions of
the water service.
The City is providing water service to the area within its incorporated boundaries. No other government
structure options were noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
Palo Alto’s water utility is addressed by the City Council during Council meetings. The Council has nine
members who are elected at large to serve staggered four-year terms. The Council meets every Monday
at 7:00 PM, except for the fifth Monday in a month. Meeting agendas are advertised the Friday prior to
the meeting.
The City actively encourages community participation in the development of its Urban Water
Management Planning efforts. The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) was formed in 1991 and
provides advice to the utility staff and City Council. The UAC includes five members of the public who
are appointed by the City Council. The UAC meets every month at 7:00 PM, generally on the first
Wednesday of the month. Agendas and reports are posted on the Utilities web site (www.cpau.com).
The City prepared and published its annual 2003 Water Quality Report in June 2004. The report is
available at the City and on the City’s website.
The City provides a substantial amount of public information on water conservation and water reuse both
published and online. The City has a website (www.city.palo-alto.ca.us) as does the Utilities Department
(www.cpau.com).
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 140
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
The City of Palo Alto currently has an estimated 59,000 residents, excluding Stanford University. ABAG
is projecting the City’s population to reach 92,200 by 2030, including the City and its Sphere of
Influence.
The City has planned for growth and development through its Comprehensive Plan, Water Master Plan
and Urban Water Management Plan.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Palo Alto is actively working to reduce the City’s dependence on the SFPUC water supply by
rehabilitating existing groundwater wells and making improvements to the supply system to maximize
groundwater usage.
Water storage capacity is currently substandard, but the City is planning to increase capacity through
construction of a 2.4 MG storage tank. The rehabilitation of groundwater wells will effectively
supplement above-ground storage.
Recycled water is provided by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant; the City is a partner
in the Water Reuse Program.
The City plans for infrastructure needs through its Water Master Plan and CIP program.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Palo Alto operates its water utility as an enterprise activity, charging all related expenses to the fund
including rent. The rate structure ensures funding for operational and maintenance needs, capital projects,
and adequate reserves.
The City maintains reserves for Emergency Plant Replacement, Rate Stabilization, and Debt Service.
Efforts to control rate increases in FY 2004-2005 resulted in a reduction of capital project expenditures of
$2.2 million.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City is continuing to develop its GIS system to provide an efficient means of managing data system-
wide.
Palo Alto uses a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to manage the water
delivery system.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 141
City Water Agencies: City of Palo Alto
As a City department, Palo Alto Utilities utilizes the functions of other departments within the City as
needed to improve the cost efficiency of the water utility.
5) Management Efficiencies
The City has implemented a Utilities Strategic Performance Plan to evaluate the City’s utilities service in
four areas: Customer & Community, Financial, Environment and People (Staff). An update is prepared
semiannually and reviewed by the Utilities Advisory Commission.
6) Shared Facilities
Palo Alto is a partner in the Water Reuse Program of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
Palo Alto is a member agency of BAWSCA and is a partner with the SCVWD for implementation of
water conservation measures.
The City has a permanent water intertie with the City of Mountain View and a temporary intertie with the
Purissima Hills County Water District that can provide water in emergencies.
7) Rate Restructuring
Palo Alto reviews its utility rates regularly. Water rates were adjusted three times in the past thirteen
months: January 1, 2004, July 1, 2004 and January 1, 2005. Rates increased 35% in the past 2-years, and
the City expects an additional 25% increase for the next two years. Water rates are established to cover
operations and maintenance, capital project expenditures, debt service and maintain an adequate level of
reserves.
The City uses a two-tiered rate structure for residential use to promote water conservation.
8) Government Structure Options
The water utility is operated by Palo Alto’s Utilities Department. No other government structure options
were noted.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The City of Palo Alto has a process to ensure that local accountability and governance standards are met
through the oversight and management provided by the City Council. The water utility is addressed
during City Council meetings. The City provides a substantial amount of water conservation and
recycling information to its residents.
The City has a five-member Utilities Advisory Commission. Commissioners are members of the public
appointed by the City Council.
The Utilities Department maintains its own website with pertinent information related to water service.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 142
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
F. SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM
Overview
The City of San Jose is the largest city in Santa Clara County, extending from the San Francisco Bay in
the north to Morgan Hill in the south. There are three major water purveyors providing water service
within the City’s incorporated area: the San Jose Water Company and the Great Oaks Water Company,
both private companies, and the San Jose Municipal Water System (SJMWS). The SJMWS serves
approximately 33.3 square miles in four separate areas of the City: North San Jose/Alviso, Evergreen,
Edenvale, and Coyote. Water supply includes a combination of groundwater, imported water and
recycled water. The City is a member agency of BAWSCA.
1. Growth and Population
The San Jose Municipal Water System’s four service areas comprise approximately 10% of the City’s
total population and 12% of total land area. They also include 29% of the City’s land available for
development. The estimated population within the combined service areas was 95,000 in 2000 and is
projected to reach 144,000 by 2020. This represents an annual growth rate of 2.6%, significantly higher
than the projected rate for other cities in Santa Clara County. The four service areas can be characterized
as follows:
• North San Jose/Alviso: 3,378 acres bounded by the Alviso Slough to the north, Trimble Road to
the south, Coyote Creek to the east and the Guadalupe River to the west. Land use is
predominantly industrial with some residential/commercial. The area is approximately 74%
developed and is expected to be fully built-out by 2010.
• Evergreen: 10,100 acres bounded by Hwy 101 on the west, the foothills of the Mount Diablo
range on the east, Tully Road to the north, and City limits to the south. Land use is
approximately 83% residential and 13% commercial. The area is approximately 70% developed.
• Edenvale: 600 acres of rural area east of Coyote Creek and south of Hellyer Avenue. The area is
zoned for industrial use. It is currently only 10% developed and expected to be 70% developed
by 2020.
• Coyote: 1,440 acres located west of Hwy 101, south of Tulare Hill, and north of Palm Avenue. It
is zoned as campus industrial and currently undeveloped. The area is expected to be 50%
developed by 2010.
The SJMWS currently provides service to the following connection types:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 23,822 92%
Manufacturing/Industrial/Commercial 737 3%
Recycled 145 0.5%
Irrigation/Commercial/Public Agencies/Temporary 1,122 4.5%
Total 25,826 100%
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 143
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
The City uses a Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary in order to define the ultimate perimeter of
urbanization. Land outside the Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary is intended to remain rural
permanently and kept under the County’s jurisdiction.
Coyote Valley will become a major new community within the City of San Jose over the next twenty
years. The Coyote Valley Specific Plan (CVSP) area encompasses 7,000 acres of mostly undeveloped
land between San Jose and Morgan Hill. 3,400 acres of the northern and central sections are envisioned
as an integrated living and working environment with the remaining 3,600 acres remaining as a
permanent non-urban buffer between San Jose and Morgan Hill.
The City of San Jose is the lead agency for this planning effort. All of the northern Coyote Valley area is
within the city limits. The City intends to expand its Urban Service Area in order to annex the mid-
Coyote area, an action which will require LAFCo approval. According to the Coyote Valley Specific
Plan Progress Report No. 2, “The South Coyote Valley Greenbelt will remain outside San Jose’s Urban
Growth Boundary, and the City has no plans to extend urban services into this area nor annex existing
unincorporated properties.” This level of growth will significantly increase water demand, and require
major infrastructure investments. Some water system projects have already been implemented in order to
support other up-front infrastructure facilities such as the Metcalf Energy Center.
There is a dispute between San Jose Municipal Water and the Great Oaks Water Company over which
agency should provide water service in the North Coyote area. Great Oaks has filed a law suit over this
issue, which is currently in the discovery phase. The area in question includes the Metcalf Energy Center,
a major new facility that will supply electricity to Coyote Valley. The plant is expected to go online in
July, 2005. The SJMWS has constructed a 3.6 million gallon water storage tank as well as three new
wells to serve the generating facility.
The City has made conservative projections on growth and water demand within each of its four service
areas, in keeping with the City’s General Plan. These projections were used for the City’s 2001 Urban
Water Management Plan as well as the upcoming Water Master Plan.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The San Jose Municipal Water System service areas are not contiguous and therefore operate with
separate systems and sources of water supply. The combined infrastructure of the SJMWS includes the
following:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 144
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 325 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 17
Total Water Storage Volume 36.5 mg
Pump Stations 15
Wells 14
Total Well Pumping Capacity 26MGD
Pressure Zones 8
Water Supply
The SJMWS relies on treated surface water and groundwater for its potable supply. Groundwater
accounts for approximately 3% of total supply and is primarily used in the Edenvale and Coyote areas. It
serves as a backup supply for the North San Jose/Alviso and Evergreen areas. Treated water purchased
from the SFPUC is used in the North San Jose/Alviso area. In the Evergreen area, treated water is
supplied by the SCVWD. The following table lists the City’s current and contractual water supply:
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume Total
(Contractual)
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 1,685 MG 978 MG 24%
Santa Clara Valley Water District 5,064 MG NP 73%
Groundwater Wells 210 MG NA 3%
Total 6,958 MG 100%
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
As noted above, the four SJMWS service areas are not interconnected and water availability in one area
cannot necessarily be considered supply for the other three areas.
Recycled water is provided by South Bay Water Recycling, a program designed to provide a reliable,
sustainable and drought-proof water supply to the South Bay area. This water is produced at the San
Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant which treats wastewater from a 300 square mile area
including San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno.
The Plant is located in Alviso and has the capacity to treat 167 million gallons per day. Approximately
10% is sold for landscape, agricultural and industrial uses. The program is managed and operated by the
SJMWS. Recycled water use within the SJMWS service area has successfully replaced up to 7% of
potable demand in areas where it is available.
Water Demand
The aggregated existing and build-out water demands for the four service areas of the SJMWS are as
follows:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 145
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand (2003/4) 19 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand (2003/4) 33.3 MGD
Existing Peak Demand (peak hour) 47.5 MGD
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) 37 MGD
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand* 69 MGD
* Based on current max day peaking factor of 1.8
The City is implementing all 14 demand management measures recommended by the California Urban
Water Conservation Council to encourage water conservation and reduce water use.
Infrastructure Overview by Service Area
North San Jose/Alviso Service Area
The North San Jose/Alviso area receives water from the Hetch Hetchy system through two turnouts from
the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. San Jose has an interruptible contract with SFPUC for up to 3,000 acre-feet
per year (approximately 978 million gallons). The contract which is set to expire in 2009 may be
terminated by SFPUC with two years notice. There are four wells in the area capable of producing 5,600
gallons per minute. This can be used to supplement the imported supply if necessary. (No groundwater
was used in 2003.) There are two storage tanks with a total capacity of 6 million gallons as well as two
booster stations. The system pressure and capacity is adequate for domestic and fire protection service.
The City has one emergency intertie in this area with the City of Santa Clara.
The SFPUC changed its water disinfectant from chlorine to chloramines in February 2004. This required
some SJMWS system changes as well as public outreach. The change in water chemistry impacted
dialysis patients as well as industrial users and biotechnology firms. The changeover occurred smoothly
and no outstanding issues were noted.
Evergreen Service Area
The Evergreen service area primarily depends on treated, imported water supplied by the SCVWD. The
water is imported through the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project and delivered to the area
through three turnouts from the SCVWD system. The City has a three year contract with the SCVWD for
deliveries with a provision for annual price adjustments. There are four wells in the area that are used to
supplement imported supply, and the City noted that storage is more than adequate. The City has one
emergency intertie in this area with the San Jose Water Company.
There is a concern about supply limitations in the Evergreen area. The City noted that in the event of an
emergency and SCVWD supply is interrupted, groundwater production capacity plus storage does not
equal the maximum day demand. The system is closely monitored during the summer to ensure system
reliability and adequate pressure for customers and fire flow. Future growth is expected in the area as it is
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 146
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
only approximately 70% developed. The City noted that it is unable to drill any new wells in the area and
they are maximizing the available treated water.
Edenvale Service Area
The Edenvale service area relies entirely on groundwater for supply. There are three existing wells in the
area, each with a capacity of 1,600 gallons per minute and a 3 MG storage tank. A fourth well is being
constructed in 2005. This area is zoned for industrial use, which has the potential to have higher water
demands than residential use. Future development will likely require infrastructure improvements to
increase system capacity, but this is typically financed through development fees.
Coyote Service Area
The Coyote area is also dependent on groundwater. The San Jose Municipal Water System has three
wells in the Coyote Service Area and one storage tank. The wells each have a capacity of 1,800 gallons
per minute, with a combined capacity of 5,400 gallons per minute; the tank has a capacity of 3.6 million
gallons. These facilities serve the Metcalf Energy Center which is expected to go online in July 2005.
The current SJMWS Coyote service area boundaries include a portion of the future Coyote Valley
community. When this community is developed, water demand will significantly increase. The SCVWD
has a Central Valley Project turnout in the area for raw imported water, but there are currently no water
treatment facilities. The Santa Teresa treatment plant is further north.
Summary
SJMWS has adequate supply to meet the current and projected demands for its service area provided that
planned strategies are implemented by the SCVWD and SFPUC. These strategies include structural
improvements to the Hetch Hetchy system, water banking, conservation measures and expansion of
recycled water systems. The City is in the process of updating its Water System Master Plan and has an
ongoing capital improvements program to address aging infrastructure and other infrastructure needs.
The City noted that improving system security and maintaining funding levels for capital improvements
will be some of the challenges it faces in the next few years.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 147
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The San Jose Municipal Water System operates as an enterprise activity. The following table summarizes
its financial activity for FY 2003-2004, as provided by the City.
San Jose Municipal Water System –FY 2003-2004 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales/Service Charges $19,941,000 98%
Other Revenue – Interest $392,000 2%
Total $20,333,000 100%
Expenses - Operations $3,838,000 17%
Water Purchases* $10,920,000 49%
CIP Projects $6,244,000 28%
Admin/Management $1,054,000 4%
Dep./Ins./Transfers/Other 425,000 2%
Total $22,481,000 100%
Reserves $10,878,000 53% of Revenue
* Purchases from SFPUC and SCVWD
The SJMWS maintains reserves for both operations and capital improvements. At the end of FY 2003,
approximately 65% of total reserves were for operations and 35% for capital needs. The SJMWS is
required by ordinance to transfer funds to the City’s General Fund for a prescribed Rate of Return and
overhead costs. The Rate of Return is based on water revenues and other factors and has an annual cap of
8%.
The City has an AA+ credit rating by both Standard and Poor’s and Fitch. There are no outstanding
bonds for the water system. The last audit was completed by the Macias Group in June, 2003.
The SJMWS noted that increasing costs for wholesale water purchases and other operational expenses
have become a financial constraint, particularly when coupled with the costs for capital improvements.
The recent escalation in projected costs for the SFPUC Regional CIP will only exacerbate the situation as
it is expected to further increase the wholesale water rates. The City is committed to stabilizing rates to
the greatest extent possible and does not fully integrate annual cost increases into the retail rate structure.
Therefore, the SJMWS must use reserves or reduce expenses elsewhere to cover the shortfall.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The San Jose Municipal Water System is actively utilizing cost avoidance and cost savings opportunities
for its water service. For example, the SJMWS is automating a number of processes and incorporating
the use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to inventory pipelines and other infrastructure.
The SJMWS is also rehabilitating or replacing aging infrastructure. This includes a program for water
main replacement which can be accelerated if necessary based on the number of breaks. Preventative
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 148
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
maintenance and planned replacement are effective cost avoidance opportunities as they reduce the
potential for more costly repairs in the future.
In January 2004, the South Bay Water Recycling program was reorganized and the management was
transferred to the SJMWS. This has provided economies of scale and greater efficiency the SJMWS and
the SBWR program.
Lastly, San Jose is a signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s Memorandum of
Understanding regarding urban water conservation and implements all 14 Best Management Practices
through its partnership with SCVWD.
5. Management Efficiencies
The San Jose Municipal Water System operates with the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 3
Operational 15
Professional/Support 19
Total 37
The City uses planning documents to guide operations and system improvements. The SJMWS is in the
process of updating its Water Master Plan. The Urban Water Management Plan was completed in 2000
and will be updated in 2005 as required by law.
The SJMWS is in the process of automating a number of systems, including the use of GIS and a
computerized maintenance management system. Performance measurements are used to evaluate
efficiency and cost effectiveness, and the results are reported to the City Council quarterly.
As mentioned above, the management of South Bay Water Recycling was recently transferred to the
SJMWS during the reorganization of the program. The operational aspects of the recycling program are
highly complementary to water operations and efficiency has increased due to synergy between the staff.
6. Shared Facilities
The San Jose Municipal Water System shares facilities where appropriate and beneficial to the City’s
water utility. It participates in water conservation programs sponsored by SCVWD consisting of several
residential and commercial programs as well as public education efforts. The SJMWS also manages the
South Bay Water Recycling program, which has multiple partners including the Cities of San Jose,
Milpitas, and Santa Clara; five sanitation districts; the San Jose Water Company and the Great Oaks
Water Company; the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the US Bureau of Reclamation.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 149
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
The SJMWS has emergency water interties with the City of Santa Clara in the North San Jose/Alviso area
and the San Jose Water Company in the Evergreen area. These jointly-owned and maintained
connections allow the agencies to share water as needed during emergencies or temporary service
interruptions.
The SJMWS has a ten-year contract with the San Jose Water Company to provide emergency repair
services. The City is a member of BAWSCA and actively participates in the regional coordination that
the Agency provides.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The San Jose Municipal Water Service is currently paying the following rates for its water supply:
SFPUC: Treated Water = $479/AF
SCVWD: Treated Water = $495/AF, Groundwater = $405/AF
The SFPUC rate increased 25% from the prior year, and the SCVWD rate increased 9.5%. Rates for both
SFPUC and SCVWD are expected to continue to increase significantly over time, which will result in rate
increases for retail water customers. The City makes every effort to stabilize retail rates and has not
directly passed on all cost increases in the past. It was noted that in recent years two public safety
positions have been eliminated as a direct result of the increased cost for water service. The City sees this
issue as one of its most significant challenges in the next few years and is actively working through
BAWSCA and the SCVWD Water Retailers Group regarding a strategy to stabilize water rates.
Demand Rates
The San Jose Municipal Water Service uses a multi-tiered rate structure to encourage conservation. The
structure also includes pricing by zone, with four price zones in the Evergreen service area, two in the
North San Jose/Alviso area and a single zone in the other two areas. Customers also pay a meter service
charge and a 5% utility tax. For a standard residential customer using a ¾” meter and 500 gallons a day
(20 hundred cubic feet per month), the monthly cost would be as follows:
$6.00 meter charge + 7 @ $1.45 + 7 @ $1.67 + 6 @ $1.87 = $39.06
The SJMWS has increased rates 8% over the past two years and expects to increase them another 2%
annually in the next two years. These consumer rate changes reflect the increased cost of wholesale water
as well as general cost increases associated with utility operations and maintenance.
8. Government Structure Options
The San Jose Municipal Water Service is operated through the City’s Environmental Services
Department. Other City departments such as Finance, Legal, Planning and Fire provide related services.
No other government structure options were noted.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 150
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The San Jose Municipal Water Service provides information pertaining to water service, conservation and
water recycling on its website (www.sanjoseca.gov). The City has prepared and published their annual
2003 Water Quality Report; there were no violations to report. The City also has an online customer
satisfaction survey that provides an opportunity for customers to provide feedback on their interactions
with the SJMWS, City, and Environmental Services Department staff.
The SJMWS is addressed by the City Council during Council meetings. Council members are elected at
large to serve staggered four-year terms. The 11-member Council generally meets every Tuesday at 1:30
PM. Public hearings are generally held every other Tuesday evening on the first and third Tuesdays of
the month at 7:00 PM. Agendas and minutes are posted on the City website.
The City is meeting the required standards for local accountability and governance, with public notice of
council meetings and actions.
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
The San Jose Municipal Water System serves approximately 12% of San Jose’s incorporated area
including 10% of the City’s population. Population within the water service area is expected to reach
144,000 by 2020.
The SJMWS has four distinct service areas: North San Jose/Alviso, Evergreen, Edenvale and Coyote.
The City has planned for growth and development through its General Plan and Urban Water
Management Plan and is integrating the projections into its upcoming Water Master Plan.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The San Jose Municipal Water System uses treated surface, ground and recycled water for its supply.
Treated surface water is purchased from SFPUC for the northern reach of the service area; treated surface
water from the SCVWD is used in the Evergreen area. The Edenvale and Coyote service areas rely on
groundwater.
SJMWS will not be able to meet maximum day demands in the Evergreen area in the event SCVWD
water supply is interrupted; groundwater production capacity and storage does not equal the maximum
day demand.
Recycled water supply is obtained from the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant; demand
is increasing.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 151
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
The SJMWS is upgrading its water delivery system through rehabilitation and replacement of aging
facilities.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The San Jose Municipal Water System operates as an enterprise activity. Per ordinance, the SJMWS is
required to reimburse the General Fund for overhead costs as well as a Rate of Return. The annual cap on
the General Fund transfers is set at 8% of revenues.
The SJMWS maintains reserves for both operations and capital expenditures.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The San Jose Municipal Water System is in the process of automating a number of processes and is
including the use of Geographic Information System technology. This is expected to provide greater
efficiency and result in future cost savings.
The SJMWS has an ongoing program for water main replacement, which will reduce the risk of more
costly repairs in the future.
5) Management Efficiencies
The San Jose Municipal Water Service uses performance measurements to monitor efficiency. The
results are reported quarterly to the City Council.
The SJMWS uses a computerized maintenance management system to monitor and plan for system
maintenance. This increases operational efficiency and allows for coordinated preventative maintenance.
6) Shared Facilities
The City of San Jose is a member agency of BAWSCA and is a partner with SCVWD for implementation
of water conservation measures. The City jointly operates several water turnout facilities and manages
the South Bay Water Recycling program.
7) Rate Restructuring
The San Jose Municipal Water System uses a multi-tiered rate structure to promote water conservation.
The rate structure is based on delivery zones, allowing the underlying costs for water acquisition,
treatment and delivery in a given area to be included.
The expected increase in the cost of imported water from both SFPUC and SCVWD represents a
significant challenge to the City in terms of moderating future rate increases.
San Jose reviews and adjusts water rates annually based on internal budget projections.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 152
City Water Agencies: San Jose Municipal Water System
8) Government Structure Options
The San Jose Municipal Water System is operated through the Environmental Services Department. The
SJMWS utilizes other departments within the City to accomplish such tasks as finance, planning, fire
protection, and information technology for operations. No other government structure options were
noted.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The City of San Jose ensures local accountability and governance standards are met through the oversight
and management provided by the City Council. The San Jose Municipal Water System is addressed
during City Council meetings. The City provides information on the water utility, water conservation and
water recycling on its website and in printed form.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 153
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
G. CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Overview
The City of Santa Clara (City), located in the northern portion of Santa Clara County, is bordered by the
City of San Jose on the north, east and south, and the Cities of Sunnyvale and Cupertino on the west.
The water system is managed by the City’s Water Utility. The Water Utility serves 106,000 residents
within its service area of 19.3 square miles. The water service area boundary is coterminous with the
City’s incorporated boundary. Land use in the northern portion of the City is predominantly commercial
and industrial, while the southern portion is primarily residential.
1. Growth and Population
The current estimated population of the City of Santa Clara is 106,000 residents. ABAG estimates that
the City’s population is 108,700 in 2005 and will reach 142,100 by 2030 with an annual growth rate of
1.2%. Growth is expected to increase average annual water demands by approximately 1.5% per year.
The City estimates that it is approximately 95% built-out and remaining growth is expected to occur
primarily in the form of redevelopment.
The City currently provides water service to the following connection types:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 20,680 83%
Manufacturing/Industrial/Commercial 3,748 15%
Recycled 159 0.7%
Other (Municipal) 328 1.3%
Total 24,915 100%
The City noted in its 2000-2010 General Plan that although it is essentially built-out, there is significant
potential for development, redevelopment, and expansion. The highest increase in density is occurring
north of the Bayshore Freeway in areas of commercial and industrial land use, where employee levels are
reaching 140 employees per acre. Residential has the highest land use percentage in the City, followed by
public facilities, which includes institutional, educational, parks and recreational, open space and
transportation rights of way. The planned land uses within the City are as follows:
Planned
Land Use
Acreage %
Mixed Use 504 4.1%
Residential 4,688 38.0%
Commercial 679 5.5%
Industrial 2,898 23.4%
Public Facilities 3,581 29.0%
Total 12,350 100.0%
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 154
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
The City has addressed the projected increase in population and related impact on water service through
its 2000-2010 General Plan and 2000 Urban Water Management Plan.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The City’s water system is comprised of the following:
Facility Quantity/Capacity
Pipelines 295 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 7
Total Water Storage Volume 83.7 AF (27.3 MG)
Pump Stations 3
Wells 27
Total Well Pumping Capacity 15,356 AFY (55.8 MGD)
Pressure Zones 4
Note: 15,356 AFY equates to 13.7 MGD which is close to current use but the
total well pumping capacity, if all wells were run at maximum flow rate is 55.8
MGD.
The water distribution system is divided into four pressure zones. The difference in elevation between the
highest and lowest ground elevations is only 165 feet which theoretically could be contained in a single
pressure zone. But because of the various water supply locations and differences in land uses throughout
the City, separate zones were established. Each zone is interconnected with pressure reducing/pressure
sustaining stations to allow water to transfer between zones. Pressures throughout the City range from 42
psi to 87 psi, with a normal fluctuation of not more than 10 psi.
Santa Clara’s Water Master Plan was completed in 2002 and identifies the need to fund replacement of
aging water system infrastructure including pipes, tanks, and pumps. Capital expenditures were
recommended to be doubled over the next ten years to meet the expected replacement needs. Nearly one
half of the City’s pipelines are over 50 years old and over 10 miles of pipe are approaching 100 years in
age. The Master Plan recommends development of a Strategic Infrastructure Replacement Plan to
replace only those portions of the water distribution system that represent the highest and most immediate
need.
The City is experiencing one to two water line breaks per month on average. Water loss, or the amount
that enters the system but is not delivered, is very low at 2.3%. The City is implementing a water line
replacement plan to address the leakage. Water utility projects identified in the FY 2003-2004 Capital
Improvements Program include distribution mains, wells and pumps, meter replacement, Agnews water
supply improvements, and seismic retrofit for storage tanks. These projects have a total funding of $2.05
million.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 155
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
Water Demand
In the 2002 Master Plan, ultimate demand (2015) was predicted at 32.3 MGD. The demand projection
assumes continued water conservation and increased utilization of recycled water, which appears to be the
scenario today. The majority of projects identified in the Master Plan involve construction of additional
storage facilities.
The following table lists existing and build-out water demands:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand (2003/4) 23.7 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand (2003/4) 35.5 MGD
Existing Peak Demand (2002 Master Plan) 42.6 MGD
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) 33.0 MGD
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand * 21.7 MGD
* Based on Max Day Factor of 1.68 and minimum Build-out AAD
Water Supply
Existing water supply is 59.6% groundwater, 31.6% treated surface water and 8.8% recycled water.
Groundwater is obtained through 27 wells distributed throughout the City. Treated water is supplied from
both SFPUC and the SCVWD through three connection points. The SCVWD serves the southern portion
of the City and the SFPUC serves the northern portion. There are more groundwater wells in the central
region of the city.
A branch of the SFPUC aqueduct from the Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir traverses the north portion of the
City. The City has two turn-outs from this source with a combined capacity of 9,000 GPM. Pressure is
adequate to avoid the need for additional pumping. This supply is temporary and interruptible.
Interruption requires two years advance notice by the SFPUC.
Treated water from the SCVWD is received into the Santa Clara system near the Serra Water Storage
Tank site near Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 in the southern portion of the City. The existing
pipeline capacity limits the maximum flow to 4,000 gpm. Any increase would require re-pumping some
of the water, modifications to the City’s system, and expansion of the District’s Rinconada Water
Treatment Plant.
The City overlies the Santa Clara Valley Sub-basin aquifer. The long-term overdraft of this groundwater
source caused serious land subsidence issues in the past. This issue is being addressed by the
implementation of a groundwater recharge program carried out by the SCVWD. The City participates in
this program through the groundwater pumping charges paid to the District. The continued success of
this program depends on maintaining a balance between extraction and recharge volumes. The City’s
General Plan noted that the expected safe-yield for the Basin is between 137,000 and 169,000 acre feet,
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 156
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
and the City’s likely allowable annual limit would be 24,600 acre feet. This is significantly less than the
62,500 acre feet per year that the City noted on the questionnaire. However, the SCVWD will be working
with the groundwater retailers, including the City, to better estimate the basin’s safe-yield as part of the
2005 Urban Water Management Plan efforts.
The City is an owner of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, a jointly operated facility
that treats wastewater and provides recycled water to several cities in the vicinity. Santa Clara receives its
recycled water from this source. Recycled water sales exceeded 2.1 MGD in 2004.
The SCVWD projections indicate as much as a 20% shortfall system-wide in the event of a multiple year
drought similar to the 1986-1991 drought. Groundwater supply would be maximized in this event, but
firm yield limits would still result in the need for water conservation.
For the supply provided by the SFPUC, the City would be subject to the terms of the Interim Water
Supply Allocation Plan that was developed through BAWSCA.
Santa Clara’s current and contractual water supply is as follows:
Current Maximum
Percent of
Supply Volume Available
Total
2003 (Contractual)
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 4.0 MGD 4.5 MGD* 12.9%
Santa Clara Valley Water District 3.7 MGD 5.7 MGD** 12.0%
Groundwater Wells 21.9 MGD 55.8 MGD 70.9%
Recycled Water 1.3 MGD 1.8 MGD*** 4.2%
Total 30.9 MGD 67.8 MGD 100%
* Contractual through BAWSCA
** Physical limitations of pipeline
*** By 2010
Water Storage
The present total system storage capacity is 27.3 million gallons. The City calculates their required water
storage volume as a combination of operational storage, emergency storage and fire flow storage.
Operational storage provides for daily fluctuation of water demands within a zone and provides for
operational flexibility. No clear relation to daily fluctuation of demands appears to be used to determine
the required operational storage. The City determined that 33% of the total storage of four of their
existing tanks would be sufficient, totaling 4.5 MG. Emergency storage quantity was based on a
“generally accepted capacity” of 50% of the Maximum Day Demand (MDD). Therefore, based on an
existing MDD of 35.5 MGD, emergency storage would be 17.75 MG.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 157
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
Fire flow storage is the amount of water required to provide a specified fire flow for a specified duration.
The City utilized the ISO method to derive a general guideline of 3,500 GPM for a 3 hour period. When
calculating the required fire flow, the City uses two concurrent fire flow demands for a total of 1.26 MG.
Based on their methods of calculation, the 27.3 MG storage capacity exceeds the estimated storage needs
of 23.45 MG. In addition, groundwater may be utilized as supplementary storage during an emergency
event. The available water may be calculated based on the difference of average demand and peak
pumping capacity of the well pump. Because above ground water storage capacity meets their needs, a
detailed analysis of available emergency or fire flow water from their existing groundwater supplies was
not conducted.
The fire flow and duration are also used within a hydraulic model of the City’s water distribution system
to determine areas that need improvements to maintain a minimum 20 PSI pressure residual during a fire
flow event.
Summary
The City of Santa Clara appears to have adequate supply to meet the current and projected demands for its
service area given the ongoing emphasis on conservation and increased use of recycled water.
Groundwater comprises the majority of supply; the remainder is treated water purchased from the two
major wholesale agencies. The City has adequate storage capacity for current demand, although demand
increases due to growth may require additional storage facilities in the future. The City’s Capital
Improvements Program addresses aging infrastructure and other system needs.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The City of Santa Clara’s Water Utility is operated as an enterprise activity. The following table
summarizes the financial activity in the Water Utility Fund for FY 2002-2003, per the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report prepared by the City.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 158
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara – Water Utility Fund FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales $17,452,000 91%
Other Revenue $1,668,888 9%
Total $19,120,000 100%
Expenses - Personnel, Operations*** $4,073,926 23.1%
Water Purchases* $8,373,871 47.6%
To General Fund**** $858,586 4.9%
Internal Services** $1,243,414 7.1%
Operational Subtotal $14,549,797 82.7%
CIP Projects $3,042,000 17.3%
Total Expenses $17,591,797 100%
Reserves $10,604,000 55.5% of Revenue
* Purchases from SFPUC and SCVWD, plus $555,000 groundwater pumping cost
** $614,000 for financial management program
*** Operations, materials, salaries, benefits, capital outlay
**** 5% of Gross revenue transferred as part of “Contribution in lieu of taxes” program
The City has no outstanding loans related to water service. CIP projects are funded on a “pay-as-you-go”
schedule, so that adequate funding is accumulated prior to project implementation. The City did not
provide information on its current credit rating.
Since the Water Utility typically does not finance capital expenses, they utilize reserves as a rate stabilizer
on an annual basis. Due to the economic downturn that has occurred over the past several years, non-
residential water demand has dropped, resulting in lower revenues. As a result, reserves have been
utilized to reduce the impact to customers while rates have been steadily increased by 8% each year.
Over the long term, the Water Utility does not consider this use of reserves as an issue since they will
continue to increase rates to eventually catch up with expenses.
The State’s budget act of 2004 included a number of changes on how local revenues are allocated. The
City of Santa Clara will likely be impacted by the $350 million aggregate contribution required for cities
for FYs 2004-2004 and 2005-2006. Although the water utility is operated as an enterprise activity, the
overall fiscal impact to the City may affect the Water Utility.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City identified several cost avoidance techniques incorporated into their water service. They utilize
variable frequency drive (VFD) pumps for some of their well and booster pumps. By utilizing VFD’s, the
pumps only operate at a rate necessary to keep up with demand. For the overall distribution system, the
City has built in a high level of redundancy through multiple sources of water. Therefore they can
effectively avoid significant cost implications that could arise in the event of a delivery failure of any one
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 159
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
of their sources. While the Water Utility does not get reduced power rates during off peak period, as one
of the largest electricity users in the City, the Water Utility fills its storage tanks during off peak periods
to lessen the electricity demand loading on the City’s Electric Utility. The City also employs engineers
that produce in-house designs for improvements. City construction crews are capable of providing much
of the infrastructure and rehabilitation construction work, effectively saving the added expense of
advertising, awarding, contracting, and managing a construction contract. Overhead and profit associated
with construction contracting is also averted by using City crews.
5. Management Efficiencies
The City’s Water Utility operates with the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 1.5
Operational 36
Professional/Support 6
Total 43.5
The Operations staff has established a service goal of a 30-minute emergency response time. In 2003 the
City received approximately 1,700 service calls related to water service, ranging from billing questions to
service complaints. The most common service complaint was milky water. The City estimated that less
than 200 calls were related to this issue. In all cases, the milky water was due to entrapped air bubbles in
the groundwater which easily clears if the water is left to stand.
Turnover in senior level staff is seen as a significant challenge for the Department in the near term. The
Department is investing in a methods and records knowledge base to enhance staff capabilities and
efficiency.
The City is achieving management efficiencies through its planning efforts. Its Urban Water
Management Plan was completed in 2000 and will be updated in 2005. The latest Water Master Plan was
completed in 2002.
6. Shared Facilities
Santa Clara shares facilities with both the SCVWD and neighboring cities. The City participates in water
conservation programs sponsored by SCVWD including water use surveys, washing machine rebates, low
flow toilets and showerhead aerators.
The City has emergency water interties with the San Jose Water Company, California Water Service
Company, and the Cities of Sunnyvale and San Jose. These jointly owned and maintained connections
provide as-needed emergency water to pass between agencies.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 160
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
The City of Santa Clara is also a joint owner and operator of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution
Control Plant. The treatment plant produces tertiary treated non-potable water for landscape irrigation
and certain industrial uses.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The City is currently paying the following rates for its water supply:
SCVWD: Treated water = $495/AF, Groundwater = $405/AF
SFPUC: Treated water = $509/AF (including meter charges)
As with other agencies receiving imported water, the City is expecting water supply rates from both
wholesalers to continue to increase significantly over time. These rate increases, and having to pass the
additional costs through to the customers, are seen by the City as one of its most significant challenges.
Demand Rates
Water rates are based on water usage with a minimum monthly meter rate, varying by meter size. The
unit cost for water is a combination of a $0.65 per hundred cubic foot (CCF) monthly quantity charge,
plus a $1.093 per CCF water and energy cost adjustment charge. This adjustment covers the costs
associated with water purchases and energy for pumping. The total cost per CCF is $1.743. There is a
minimum monthly charge which varies by meter size from $5.60 for a 5/8-inch meter to $427.90 for a 12-
inch meter. Rates for service to meters served outside the city limits are adjusted by 1.5 times the
standard rate. Agricultural users receive a $0.26 credit per CCF.
For a standard residential customer using a ¾” meter and 500 gallons a day, or 20 units a month, the
monthly bill would be 20 @ $1.743 = $34.86.
Rates are reviewed and adjusted annually to cover budgeted costs, including water purchases,
maintenance and operations, and CIP projects. The FY 2004-2005 adopted budget includes an 8%
increase in rates. Rates are expected to increase an additional 8% over the next two years.
8. Government Structure Options
Santa Clara’s water utility is operated by the City’s Water and Sewer Utilities. Other City departments
provide related services, such as fleet management, finance, legal, planning and fire protection. No other
government structure options were noted.
The City’s water service boundaries are coterminous with the incorporated area boundaries.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
Santa Clara provides information pertaining to water service on its website (www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us).
Topics include water conservation and water reuse. The City prepared and published their annual 2003
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 161
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
Water Quality Report in June 2004. The report is available at the City and on their website. The City’s
annual financial reports and budgets are also posted on the website.
The water utility is addressed by the City Council during Council meetings. Council members are elected
at large to serve staggered four-year terms. The Council meets at least twice per month on Tuesdays at
7:00 PM. The public is noticed through the city calendar, website and citywide cable channel.
The City is meeting the acceptable standards for local accountability and governance, with public notice
of council meetings and actions and water service information.
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
The City of Santa Clara estimates that its population is currently 106,000; ABAG is estimates that the
City’s population in 2005 is 108,700 and will reach 142,100 by 2030, with an annual growth rate of 1.2%.
The City has planned for growth and development through its General Plan, Water Master Plan and
Urban Water Management Plan.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Santa Clara relies primarily on groundwater obtained from 27 wells distributed throughout the City.
The City purchases treated water from SFPUC and SCVWD for its remaining supply. Recycled water is
supplied from the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant.
The City’s water storage capacity is adequate to meet current operational, emergency and fire flow
storage needs.
The City’s water system infrastructure is aging; the City is addressing the needs through its 2002 Water
Master Plan and its CIP plan.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Santa Clara operates its water utility as an enterprise activity and it is intended to be self-supporting
through user service charges.
Capital improvements are made on a “pay as you go” basis with no outside financing or loans.
The changes to local revenue allocation included in the State’s budget act of 2004 may fiscally impact the
City, including the water utility. 5% of gross revenues are transferred to the General Fund as part of the
contribution in lieu of property taxes program.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 162
City Water Agencies: City of Santa Clara
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
Santa Clara is avoiding costs through a number of methods, including technology and equipment, staffing
capabilities, and redundancy in water sources.
Some of the CIP projects pertain to replacements, upgrades and modifications to improve existing
facilities, effectively resulting in preventative maintenance and potential cost avoidance in the event of a
failure.
5) Management Efficiencies
The Water and Sewer Utilities manages the water utility in conjunction with the sewer utility, effectively
utilizing staff.
Expected turnover in senior level staff is seen as a significant challenge by the Department in the near
term.
6) Shared Facilities
Santa Clara is a member agency of BAWSCA and is a partner with SCVWD for implementation of water
conservation measures. The City jointly operates several water intertie facilities and is a joint owner of
the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant.
7) Rate Restructuring
The City of Santa Clara adjusts its water rates annually based on internal budget projections.
The expected increase in the cost of imported water from both SFPUC and SCVWD represents a
significant challenge to the City in terms of moderating future rate increases.
8) Government Structure Options
The water utility is a division of the City of Santa Clara’s Water and Sewer Utilities. The Division
utilizes other departments within the City to accomplish such tasks as fleet management, finance,
planning, and fire protection for operation of the utility. No other government structure options were
noted.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The City of Santa Clara ensures that local accountability and governance standards are met through the
oversight and management provided by the City Council. The water utility is addressed during City
Council meetings. The City provides a substantial amount of information related to water service, water
conservation and water reuse to its water utility customers.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 163
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
H. CITY OF SUNNYVALE
Overview
The City of Sunnyvale is located in northern Santa Clara County between the cities of Mountain View
and Santa Clara. The water system is managed by the City’s Public Works Department. Sunnyvale
provides water to 131,760 residents within a service area that encompasses 24 square miles. California
Water Service (Cal Water), a private water purveyor, serves approximately twelve small areas within the
City’s boundaries. Sunnyvale obtains its water supply from four sources: groundwater, SFPUC,
SCVWD and recycled water from the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant. The City is a member
agency of BAWSCA.
1. Growth and Population
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Sunnyvale has a population of 131,760 residents. ABAG estimates
the City’s population at 133,000 in 2005, reaching 159,100 in 2030 with an annual growth rate of 0.8%.
According to the City’s 1997 Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan, approximately
96% of the parcels in the City are developed. Future development will include infill, redevelopment, and
intensification of existing land use in designated areas. Of the 265 acres that were vacant in 1997, 17%
were zoned for residential use, 78% for industrial, and 4% for commercial and 1% for public and quasi
public use. The General Plan notes that the City has “taken actions to ensure that development is within
existing service capacity”.
The City currently provides service to the following connection types:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 24,587 90%
Manufacturing/Industrial/Commercial 1,904 7%
Irrigation/Agriculture 767 3%
Recycled 89 <1%
Total 27,347 100%
Water Resources are specifically addressed in the 1996 Environmental Management Element of the
City’s General Plan. There are four primary goals for supply and distribution:
1. Goal 3.1A: Ensure potable water is available in sufficient quantity and pressure to meet the
City’s existing and future demands, and respond to emergency conditions.
2. Goal 3.1B: Develop a comprehensive water conservation plan.
3. Goal 3.1C: Maintain financially stable water fund through a user based fee system.
4. Goal 3.1D: Ensure potable water meets all quality and health standards.
Each of these goals has specific policies and actions associated with it. The intent is to ensure that growth
and development within the City occur in conjunction with adequate supply and water system capacity.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 164
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
The City has addressed the impact on water service from growth and the projected increase in population
in its General Plan, 1999 Water Master Plan and 2000 Urban Water Management Plan.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The City’s water system is comprised of the following components:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 280 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 10
Total Water Storage Volume 84.4 AF (27.5 MG)
Pump Stations 5 (21 pumps)
Wells 9
Total Well Pumping Capacity 9 MGD
Pressure Zones 3 (40-105 psi)
The City adopted its Water Master Plan in 1999, which provides for system improvements based on
projected growth and increased demand. The City budgets for infrastructure needs on a two-year budget
cycle. As of December 2004, the City had $2.7 million budgeted for active capital improvement projects
for numerous water projects, including security upgrades for wells and reservoirs, replacement of pipes,
manholes and laterals, pump repairs, and replacement of obsolete Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) system hardware and software. The SCADA system will improve monitoring of
water pressures and flows throughout the system.
Aging infrastructure is a concern. City staff estimated 14 water pipeline breaks in FY 2002-2003,
although actual records of pipeline breaks or leaks were unavailable. The City’s goal is to replace
approximately two miles of pipe per year.
The City noted that there are pockets within the downtown region that do not meet current fire flow
requirements. These pockets have been identified and near-term CIP projects setup to correct the problem
areas. One of the projects listed in the CIP is the Downtown Water Line Engineering Study that will
determine the conditions and appropriate line size to service redevelopment.
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water), a private purveyor, provides service to
approximately twelve service area pockets within the City’s boundaries. Service in these non-contiguous
areas stems from Cal Water’s acquisition of four water companies within the Los Altos area dating back
to 1931. Some of those service areas include portions of Sunnyvale.
The City has emergency water pipeline interties with Mountain View, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Cal
Water. The City noted that improving water supply redundancy, perhaps through the construction of new
groundwater wells, was a priority.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 165
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
Water Demands
Existing and build-out water demands for Sunnyvale are as follows:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand (2003/4) 22.6 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand (2003/4) 29.0 MGD (89 AF/Day)
Existing Peak Demand NP
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) 25.25 MGD (28,208 Af/Yr)1
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand 32.4 MGD*
* Based on current max day peaking factor of 1.28
In FY 2001-2002, residential customers accounted for 90% of the 28,923 service connections and 58% of
the total water demand. Using the same percentages for FY 2002-2003, residential demand equals 13.1
MGD, or 533 gallons per day per residential connection.
Water Supply
Sunnyvale’s current and contractual water supply is as follows:
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume* Total
(Contractual)
San Francisco Public Utility Commission 9.1 MGD 15 MGD** 40%
Santa Clara Valley Water District 11.0 MGD 17 MGD 48%
Groundwater Wells (1,521 AF/Yr) 1.32 MGD 9.5 MGD 6%
Recycled Water 1.38 MGD 1.8 MGD 6%
43.3 MGD
Total 22.8 MGD 100%
(141 AF/Day)
* Based on 2002/2003 Actuals
** 16,800 AF/yr (UWMP Chapter 3)
Groundwater is a critical source of supply for the City, supplementing treated surface water. The City
operates nine wells dispersed throughout its service area. Groundwater quality is good, and the water
meets all drinking water standards without any treatment requirements. Total available supply for all
wells is 9.5 MGD. The wells are used to maintain pressure within the system during peak demands and
emergencies. They could provide up to 40% of the supply, but due to SCVWD pump taxes and energy
costs, it is more cost effective for the City to maximize use of treated water.
Imported water from SFPUC comes from six delivery points located along the SFPUC Bay Division
transmission pipeline, which runs through the northern part of the City. In May 2005 SFPUC is planning
1 City of Sunnyvale, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. Appendix B.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 166
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
to replace its existing fluoridation station on the San Francisco Peninsula with a new system-wide
fluoridation facility at its water treatment plant in the East Bay. With this change, Sunnyvale will be
receiving fluoridated water from SFPUC. However, the SCVWD and groundwater supplies are not
fluoridated, which will create inconsistencies in the water supply. The City recently authorized funding
for a study to analyze the impacts of SFPUC fluoridation on the City. The results should help the City
determine which residents are served by each source, the cost to fluoridate all water, and the issues and
costs associated with not fluoridating SCVWD and groundwater supplies.
Sunnyvale serves the southern portion of its service area with treated water from the SCVWD. The
supply comes through the West Valley transmission main from the Rinconada Treatment Plant located in
Los Gatos. Sunnyvale maintains two points of connection to the main.
Recycled water is produced at the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant. Currently, the recycled
distribution infrastructure is only in the northern portion of the City. Through FY 2003-2004, the City
has invested $20.2 million in the water reuse system. The phase completed in FY 2003-2004 included a
storage tank and increased production capacity to 2 million gallons per day.
Water Storage
Current water storage is 27.5 MG, which can supply up to 1.3 days of average daily demand. This could
be considered low on average but existing groundwater wells provide supplemental supply for peak
demands and emergencies. The City identified tank repairs and retrofits as a priority as all ten of their
existing storage tanks are over 30 years old.
Summary
Sunnyvale obtains its water supply from several sources, including imported and groundwater. The City
has adequate supply to meet current and projected demand, provided imported water continues to be
available at current levels. The City’s Water Master Plan, Capital Improvements Program and Projects
Budget address system improvements, aging infrastructure and other system needs.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The City of Sunnyvale finances its Water Supply and Distribution utility through user fees. As mentioned
earlier, one of the goals included in the Water Resources section of the City’s General Plan is to
“maintain a financially stable water fund through a user based fee system.” The related policies include
establishing a rate structure that ensures funding of capital improvements, operational and maintenance
needs, and the development of an adequate reserve. The following table summarizes the financial activity
in the Water Supply and Distribution Fund for FY 2002-2003, per the City’s posted budget for FY 2004-
2005.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 167
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
City of Sunnyvale – Water Supply and Distribution Fund FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Water Sales $16,619,506 88%
Other Revenue $2,271,289 12%
Total $18,890,795 100%
Expenses - Operations $4,640,193 24%
Water Purchases* $11,188,934 57%
CIP Projects $397,856 2%
Admin/Management $24,661 0%
Dep./Ins./Transfers/Other $3,418,397 17%
Total $19,670,041 100%
Reserves $4,231,291 22% of Revenue
* Purchases from SFPUC and SCVWD
The City has designated reserves for debt service (27%); contingencies (59%), rate stabilization (14%),
and a 20-year resource allocation plan (0%). The City has developed a 20-year budget, and has projected
revenues and expenditures through FY 2023-2024.
The City of Sunnyvale uses bonds to finance major infrastructure projects. The City has a AAA bond
rating. There are six outstanding bond issues for combined water, wastewater and other public works
infrastructure improvement projects.
The City noted in its Projects Budget Guide for FY 2004-2005 that the City faced a budget crisis in FY
2003-2004 that required immediate action to address budget shortfalls. It also noted that, “As the budget
for FY 2004-2005 was prepared, the City’s financial position worsened, resulting in an additional budget
shortfall.” The outcome was that unfunded projects were not re-evaluated for funding in FY 2004-2005.
The State’s budget act of 2004 significantly changed how local revenues are allocated. Cities within
California will be required to contribute to the State’s General Fund in both FY 2004-2005 and 2005-
2006. Sunnyvale’s estimated contribution in the first year is approximately $2.05 million. The impact of
this reduction in revenue will likely be felt across all affected city departments, including Public Works.
The City is addressing this financial situation directly; the impact may delay water projects. However, the
planning has been completed, and the projects may be considered for funding in the future when the
financial situation improves.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 168
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City is actively pursuing cost avoidance opportunities for various aspects of the water delivery
process. The use of a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system (SCADA) is a significant cost
avoidance measure as it allows operators to monitor pressures and water flow, and identify potential
problems within the system before they elevate to emergency status.
The City maintains a Geographic Information System (GIS) database of the water system. In the future
the City would like to expand the use the system to inventory assets, track maintenance orders, perform
hydraulic modeling, and provide a means of indexing recorded improvement plans.
In terms of personnel, when highly technical design or engineering is necessary, the City hires consultants
on an as-need basis. This allows the City to maintain a lower number of full-time staff, avoiding
personnel costs during slower production times.
The Public Works Department utilizes the services of other City departments to offset costs related to
finance, communications, legal, planning and fleet management.
5. Management Efficiencies
The Water and Sewer Utilities Department operates with the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 7
Operational 38
Professional/Support 1
Total 46
NP – not provided
The City adopted its Water Master Plan in 1999 and Urban Water Management Plan in 2000. Both plans
will be updated in 2005.
The City of Sunnyvale uses a Performance Budget which correlates to the elements of the General Plan.
Rather than a traditional line-item budget, this approach places the emphasis on planning and budgeting
for the accomplishment of service objectives. It includes evaluation measures such as objectives,
performance indicators, and measurable activities and tasks. This methodology allows the Public Works
Department to achieve management efficiencies through detailed evaluation of the water utility’s
performance, both in service and cost.
The Department tracked 364 complaints in 2003; however the breakdown by type of complaint was not
available. The response, time and cost to resolve complaints are all evaluated in the Performance Budget.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 169
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
6. Shared Facilities
The City of Sunnyvale regularly shares facilities with other agencies in order to reduce costs and improve
efficiencies. The City participates in the recycled water rebate program with SCVWD as well as the
District’s water conservation program. Water department staff often attends safety training courses in
conjunction with other agencies.
The City noted that there would be benefit from more joint planning for new well construction. A study
with SCVWD for “regional” wells for emergency storage was also considered to have merit.
The Water utility shares facilities with the City’s Wastewater utility. Recycled water is produced at the
Donald M. Somers Water Pollution Control Plant, utilizing tertiary level wastewater treatment. The water
is currently being used for landscaping purposes in the northern third of the City, reducing demand for
potable water.
Sunnyvale is a signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s Memorandum of
Understanding regarding urban water conservation and implements all 14 Best Management Practices
through the partnership with SCVWD. It is also a member of BAWSCA, utilizing the structure and
functions of that agency to manage the imported water supply from SFPUC.
The City has water interties with Mountain View, Cupertino, Santa Clara and the California Water
Service Company. These jointly owned and maintained interties provide as-needed emergency water to
pass between agencies.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The City is currently paying the following rates for its water supply:
SFPUC: Treated Water = $471.52/AF
SCVWD: Treated Water = $412.33/AF, Groundwater = $439.38/AF
The City is expecting water supply rates from SFPUC and SCVWD to continue to increase significantly
over time, which will result in rate increases for its water customers. The City sees this as one of its most
significant challenges in the next few years.
Demand Rates
Sunnyvale uses an inverted rate structure for water sales, which serves as a demand management measure
for water conservation. Rates are reviewed annually and adjusted as necessary based on expected cost
increases. The City does have reserves designated for rate stabilization. The long-term financial plan for
the City indicates an expected user rate increase of 5 to 7% annually through 2010.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 170
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
Rates are established based on account type and include the following: Apartments, Residential,
Commercial/Industrial/Fire Line/New Construction, Landscape, and Agricultural/Institutional.
Landscape users pay the highest rate at $2.1298 per hundred cubic feet (CCF) for all water drawn for
landscape uses. Reclaimed water is sold at $1.9181 per CCF for landscape use and $0.9106 per CCF for
agricultural and institutional use. Customers are also charged a water service fee or meter charge. Water
delivered outside City boundaries is sold at three times the normal rate, except recycled water. (No out-
of-area service was noted.)
For a standard residential customer using a ¾” meter and 500 gallons a day, or 20 CCF per month, the
monthly bill would be $33.51 water fee + $3.86 service fee = $37.37.
The last formal rate study was conducted in 2000. The next scheduled rate study will be in FY 2004-
2005, as part of a cost of service study.
8. Government Structure Options
The City of Sunnyvale operates its water utility through the Public Works Department. Other City
departments such as field services, fleet management, communications, IT (GIS), legal, finance,
community development, fire and planning provide related services.
The City’s water service boundaries are coterminous with the boundaries of the City’s incorporated area.
No other government structure options were noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
Sunnyvale provides information related to its water service on the City’s website (www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us).
The City published its annual 2003 Water Quality Report in June 2004. The report is available at the
Public Works office. The City’s annual financial reports and budgets are also posted on the website.
The water utility is addressed by the City Council during Council meetings. Council members are elected
at large to serve staggered four-year terms. The Council meets each Tuesday at 7:30 PM. Meeting
notices are posted in the City’s offices as well as on the website.
The City is meeting the acceptable standards for local accountability and governance, with public notice
of council meetings and actions as well as water service information.
– DETERMINATIONS –
1) Population and Growth
Sunnyvale has a population of 131,760 per the 2000 U.S. Census. ABAG estimates the City’s population
at 133,000 in 2005, reaching 159,100 in 2030 with an annual growth rate of 0.8%.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 171
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
The City is primarily built out; future growth will occur through infill, redevelopment, and intensification
of existing land use in designated areas
The City has planned for growth and development through its General Plan, Water Master Plan and
Urban Water Management Plan.
2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Sunnyvale relies primarily on imported water obtained from SFPUC and SCVWD for its supply. Nine
groundwater wells provide a supplementary source.
Recycled water is produced at the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant; the water is available to
customers in the northern portion of the City.
The City plans for infrastructure needs through its Water Master Plan and CIP program. As of December
2004, the CIP has $2.7 million budgeted for active water projects.
Water storage capacity is adequate per industry standards; however, the storage facilities are over 30
years old and maintenance and repairs will be a priority.
3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Sunnyvale finances its water utility through user fees; the rate structure ensures funding for capital
improvements, operational and maintenance needs, and the development of an adequate reserve.
The City has designated reserves for debt service, contingencies, rate stabilization and a 20-year resource
allocation plan.
The City uses a 20-year timeframe for budgeting, which provides the benefits of long-term financial
planning.
The City is currently facing a budget crisis that may impact the water utility.
4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities
Sunnyvale avoids costs related to water supply and distribution through the use of technology (SCADA
system and GIS).
The City actively pursues cost avoidance measures including demand management and the use of long-
term financial planning.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 172
City Water Agencies: City of Sunnyvale
5) Management Efficiencies
Sunnyvale uses a Performance Budget which correlates to the elements of the General Plan. The
evaluation measures that are included provide a means for the City to achieve management efficiencies
both in cost and service levels.
6) Shared Facilities
Sunnyvale is a member agency of BAWSCA and is a partner with SCVWD for implementation of water
conservation measures.
The Water Service and Distribution utility delivers recycled water produced at the Sunnyvale Water
Pollution Control Plant.
The City has several water interties with surrounding agencies that can provide water in emergencies.
7) Rate Restructuring
Sunnyvale uses an inverted rate structure to promote water conservation.
The expected increase in the cost of imported water from both SFPUC and SCVWD represents a
significant challenge to the City in terms of moderating future rate increases.
Sunnyvale adjusts rates annually based on internal budget projections.
8) Government Structure Options
The water utility is operated by Sunnyvale’s Public Works Department. The water utility utilizes other
departments within the City to accomplish such tasks as finance, planning, fire protection, and
information technology for operation of the utility. No other government structure options were noted.
9) Local Accountability and Governance
The City of Sunnyvale ensures that local accountability and governance standards are met through the
oversight and management provided by the City Council. The water utility is addressed during City
Council meetings. The City provides a substantial amount of water conservation and recycling
information to its residents.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 173
44.. PRIVATE WATER PURVEYORS
California Water Service Company
Great Oaks Water Company
San Jose Water Company
Stanford University
West San Martin Water Works, Inc.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 174
Private Water Purveyors: California Water Service Company
A. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY
Overview
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) is a private company based in San Jose which
provides water service in numerous locations throughout California. The Company’s Los Altos-Suburban
District serves Los Altos and the vicinity. Cal Water is the largest investor-owned water utility in the
western United States and is a subsidiary of the California Water Service Group. Within its Los Altos-
Suburban District, Cal Water serves 17,807 connections. The source of supply includes both groundwater
and treated surface water provided by the SCVWD. Cal Water operates under the oversight and authority
of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The California Water Service Company is a private entity and is not subject to LAFCo purview; therefore
no determinations have been included. Cal Water is included in the report to ensure a comprehensive
review of water service in Santa Clara County.
1. Growth and Population
Cal Water currently provides service to the following connections within its Los Altos-Suburban District:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 16,500 93%
Commercial/Manufacturing/Industrial 7 0%
Other – Governmental 1,300 7%
Total 17,807 100%
Little growth is expected within this service area over the next twenty years. ABAG’s projected annual
growth rate for Los Altos is 0.2%.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Cal Water provides both groundwater and treated local surface water within the Los Altos-Suburban
service area. The water system is comprised of the following:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 293+
Reservoirs (Tanks) 47
Total Water Storage Volume 14.7 MG
Pump Stations NP
Wells 28
Total Well Pumping Capacity 1,444.5 MG
Pressure Zones 18
The Company operates under the authority of the CPUC, which sets standards for system capacity and
service reliability.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 175
Private Water Purveyors: California Water Service Company
Water Supply
Cal Water’s supply includes groundwater (28%) and treated water purchased from the SCVWD (72%).
Data provided by the SCVWD indicated that the Company had 4,459 acre feet of groundwater production
in 2003. The Company has no treatment facilities. Groundwater management and recharge is performed
by the SCVWD.
Recycled water is not available within the Company’s service area.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Cal Water declined to provide proprietary financial information for this review as the service area data is
commingled with all other Cal Water operations. The Company did note that the CIP for the Los Altos-
Suburban District is $1.8 million.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
No information was provided.
5. Management Efficiencies
Cal Water has over 800 employees and has established management practices in order to increase
efficiency and maximize profits. The Company is investor-owned and must meet certain levels of
performance per investor expectations.
6. Shared Facilities
No information was provided.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The Company pays a groundwater pump tax to the SCVWD to cover the costs associated with the
District’s groundwater recharge program. The Company pays a different rate for treated water, as
follows:
SCVWD: Pump Tax = $435/AF
SCVWD Treated = $460/AF
Demand Rates
Cal Water must receive approval from the CPUC for any rate changes. The Company increased rates 8%
in the last two years, and expects to increase them another 10% over the next two years. The current rates
went into effect on January 12, 2004. For comparison purposes, a ¾” meter and 20 CCF of water use
would result in the following charge:
$14.70 meter + 20 CCF @ $1.9319 = $53.34
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 176
Private Water Purveyors: California Water Service Company
8. Government Structure Options
The California Water Service Company is a private entity. Water service is provided to parcels within the
Los Altos-Suburban District service area that has been approved by the CPUC. No government structure
options were noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The California Water Service Company is a private entity operated under the direction of a Board of
Directors. Directors are elected by majority vote of outstanding shareholders. Cal Water maintains a
website to provide information to its customers (www.calwater.org).
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 177
Private Water Purveyors: Great Oaks Water Company
B. GREAT OAKS WATER COMPANY
Overview
The Great Oaks Water Company, formed in the early 1960’s, provides retail water service to four areas:
Blossom Valley, Santa Teresa, Edenvale and Coyote Valley. 99.8% of the Company’s revenue is derived
from service within San Jose’s incorporated area. The Company uses groundwater as its sole source of
supply. Great Oaks is a private company and operates under the oversight of the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The Great Oaks Water Company is not subject to LAFCo purview, and accordingly no determinations are
included. Great Oaks is included in the report to ensure a comprehensive review of water service in
Santa Clara County. The Great Oaks Water Company declined to participate in the service review. The
information included was obtained from public information sources and data provided to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District.
1. Growth and Population
The Great Oaks Water Company serves an estimated population of 70,963. Its service area includes
portions of San Jose that are projected to have moderate to high growth, particularly in the Coyote Valley
area. The Company provides service to the following connections:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Commercial (including domestic) 19,935 99%
Industrial 47 0%
Public Authorities 156 1%
Schools 32 0%
Total 20,170 100%
Company data indicates that 20 new connections were added in 2003. Growth within the Great Oaks
service area is addressed by the SCVWD in its long-range planning documents and Capital Improvement
Plan.
2. Infrastructure Summary
The Great Oaks Water Company relies solely on groundwater for its water supply. The Great Oaks water
system consists of the following:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 178
Private Water Purveyors: Great Oaks Water Company
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 185 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 6
Total Water Storage Volume 6.23 MG
Wells 15
Total Well Pumping Capacity 21,925 GPM
The Company is required to adhere to the standards adopted by the CPUC for system condition and
capacity to ensure adequate levels of service for domestic use as well as fire flow. Total water use for
2003 was reported at 12,792 acre-feet.
There is a dispute between the Great Oaks Water Company and San Jose Municipal Water System over
which purveyor should provide water service in the North Coyote area. Great Oaks has filed a law suit
over this issue, which is currently in the discovery phase. The area in question includes the Metcalf
Energy Center, a major new facility that will supply electricity to Coyote Valley. The plant is expected to
go online in July, 2005.
3. Management Efficiencies
The Great Oaks Water Company operates with 16 staff members.
4. Rate Summary
Supply Rates
The Great Oaks Water Company is a retail customer of the SCVWD. It pays a groundwater pumping tax
of $405 per acre foot.
Demand Rates
The Company’s current water rates include a readiness to serve charge (meter charge) as well as a usage
charge. The rate structure has one flat rate based on volume; the permanent rate is $1.409 per hundred
cubic feet and there is also a temporary surcharge of $0.196 yielding a combined rate of $1.605. The
reason for the surcharge was not identified. Any proposed rate changes must be submitted to the CPUC
for approval. For comparison to other water agencies, a typical demand of 20 hundred cubic feet (CCF)
has been used throughout this report. Using 20 CCF and a ¾” meter, the monthly bill for a customer of
the Great Oaks Water Company would be as follows:
$5.25 meter chg + 20 CCF @ $1.605 = $37.35
5. Local Accountability
The Great Oaks Water Company maintains a website with some company information for its customers
(www.greatoakswater.com).
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 179
Private Water Purveyors: San Jose Water Company
C. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
Overview
The San Jose Water Company (SJWC) is the largest private water provider in Santa Clara County serving
an area that encompasses 138 square miles. The SJWC provides potable water service to portions of
Cupertino, San Jose, and Santa Clara; all of Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno; and
contiguous territory in the County of Santa Clara. As a private water utility, the Company operates under
the authority of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The San Jose Water Company is a private entity and not subject to LAFCo purview; therefore no
determinations have been included. The company is included in the report to ensure a comprehensive
review of water service in Santa Clara County.
1. Growth and Population
The San Jose Water Company serves an estimated population of 1 million. Growth within the service
area is expected to be slow to moderate; ABAG’s annual growth rate projections are as follows:
Campbell (0.4%), Cupertino (1.0%), Los Gatos (0.4%), Monte Sereno (0.8%), Saratoga (0.5%), and San
Jose (0.9%). The combined population within these areas is expected to reach 1.3 million in 2025,
although the Company only serves a portion of the entire area. The highest level of growth is projected in
Cupertino and San Jose. The Company serves the following connections:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 215,029 99%
Commercial/Manufacturing/Industrial 91 0%
Other – Governmental 1,955 1%
Recycled 40 0%
Total 217,115 100%
The SJWC adds approximately 1,200 new connections each year. The Company relies on the SCVWD
to manage future supply based on projected growth. The Company has planned for growth within its
service area through its Urban Water Management Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan, and Capital
Improvement Plan.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 180
Private Water Purveyors: San Jose Water Company
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The SJWC water system is comprised of the following:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 2,475 miles
Reservoirs and Tanks R = 5 T = 82
Total Water Storage Volume 7,110 AF
Pump Stations 217 (428 MGD)
Wells 99
Total Well Pumping Capacity 233 MG
Pressure Zones 65
The company operates under the authority of the CPUC, which sets standards for system capacity and
service reliability.
The SJWC has developed an Infrastructure Master Plan for Pipelines and Special Facilities. Related to
that is the Company’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan. Over $1 million in improvements are in
process for its collection and distribution facilities, primarily to improve fire flow capacity. There are
areas within the SJWC service area that currently do not meet fire flow standards, primarily due to prior
planning approvals that waived some water system requirements. The Company is actively working to
improve this situation whenever there is an opportunity to upgrade pipeline capacity.
The SJWC disinfects groundwater at the well-head and has two treatment facilities for surface water
(Montevina and Saratoga). One uses a direct filtration process and the other microfiltration, with a
combined capacity of 35 million gallons per day. The facilities are in very good to excellent shape. The
smaller plant was built in 1993 on the site of a former plant that had been taken out of service. The larger
facility has recently undergone major capital improvements.
The Company’s wells are all rated in good to excellent condition with no contaminant issues with the
exception of one well that has some nitrate issues. The SJWC is able to manage this through time of use
and dilution. The water storage facilities include steel and redwood tanks as well as open distribution
reservoirs and raw water reservoirs. These facilities are all rated in good condition.
In 1997 the SJWC was awarded a 25-year lease to operate the City of Cupertino’s Water Distribution
System. The system needs and demand have been factored into the Company’s planning efforts.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 181
Private Water Purveyors: San Jose Water Company
Water Demand
The following table lists existing and build-out water demands:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand (2003/4) 138.0 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand (2003/4) 232.6 MGD
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020)
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand * 390.1 MGD
The SJWC has a water conservation program and dedicated conservation staff. It uses a number of
Demand Management Measures in order to encourage water conservation.
Water Supply
The SJWC obtains its water supply from several sources: groundwater (34%), surface supply (12%), and
treated surface water from the SCVWD (54%). The SJWC is the SCVWD’s largest customer, purchasing
over 50% of the District’s treated supply. The SJWC receives water from all three of the SCVWD’s
treatment plants.
Local surface supply is the most cost-effective water source for the SJWC as there is no cost for supply,
only collection, treatment and distribution. The SJWC holds water rights on several local creeks and
impounds raw water at the following lakes: Cozzens, Elsman, Kittredge, McKenzie, and Williams.
Groundwater is extracted from the Santa Clara Valley Basin, which receives natural and artificial
recharge through the SCVWD’s facilities. The District manages all of the groundwater resources and is
responsible for all recharge functions.
The SJWC offers recycled water through South Bay Water Recycling; the water is produced at the San
Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant in Alviso and is available in the northern and eastern
portions of the SJWC’s service area.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Revenue for the SJWC is derived from service charges. The following is the Company’s financial
summary:
San Jose Water Company – FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Service Charges $149.7 million 100%
Expenses - Expenses $126.8 million
Capital Improvements $28.7 million
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 182
Private Water Purveyors: San Jose Water Company
The SJWC undergoes an annual independent audit conducted by KPMG, LLP. The results of the 2003
audit were not qualified in any way. The Company has outstanding bonds of $130 million; all are rated
NAIC 1 (National Association of Insurance Companies).
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The San Jose Water Company is avoiding costs through efficient management operations, maximizing the
use of its water resources and being actively involved in water-related issues in the County. The
Company provides leadership in the SCVWD water retailers group as well as the group’s financial
subcommittee.
The SJWC uses technology extensively to manage its system, resulting in lower staff levels, controlled
energy costs, and improved security monitoring. For its system, the Company uses a fifth generation
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that enables staff to efficiently manage
pressure, flow and energy use, as well as monitor for system problems before they become critical. The
Company noted that it has comprehensive cost/connection controls to ensure maximum cost-
effectiveness.
In addition, the SJWC is a partner in South Bay Water Recycling, along with the San Jose Municipal
Water System, the Cities of Milpitas and Santa Clara, the Great Oaks Water Company, the SCVWD and
the US Bureau of Reclamation. This partnership provides coordination with the retailers to ensure that
the area’s recycled water resource is maximized, both in terms of delivery and plant treatment capacity.
5. Management Efficiencies
The San Jose Water Company is operating with the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 24
Operational 165
Professional/Support 112
Total 301
The SJWC purchased a Computerized Maintenance Management System in 2004, which is expected to
improve efficiency and reduce future repair costs. The Company has established management practices
in order to increase efficiency and maximize profits. It is investor-owned and must meet certain levels of
performance based on investor expectations.
6. Shared Facilities
The SJWC shares facilities where appropriate to increase efficiency and improve cost effectiveness. The
Company has two intertie connections with the SCVWD at Quito Road and Cox Avenue to improve
reliability for SCVWD retailers receiving water from the Rinconada Treatment Plant through the West
Pipeline.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 183
Private Water Purveyors: San Jose Water Company
The Company also wholesales water to 35 water mutuals and other small water systems. It sells water to
the Aldercroft Heights County Water District directly from Los Gatos Creek where the Company holds
water rights.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The SJWC pays a groundwater pump tax to the SCVWD to cover the costs associated with the District’s
groundwater recharge program. The Company also pays a treated water rate for imported supply:
SCVWD Pump Tax = $435/AF
SCVWD Treated = $460/AF
Demand Rates
The San Jose Water Company reviews rates annually; any rate changes must be approved by the CPUC.
The Company increased rates 3.5% in 2002, another 7.1% in 2003, and 7.56% in 2004. It is expected that
rate increases will continue. The projected rate increase for 2005 was 2.5%.
The SJWC has a flat rate structure that includes a meter charge and water usage. In addition, there is
1.4% surcharge on all customer bills to recover the cost of the fee imposed by the CPUC to fund their
regulation. For comparison purposes, a ¾” meter and 20 hundred cubic feet of water use would result in
the following charge:
$9.37 meter + 20 CCF @ $1.8314 + 1.4% surcharge = $46.64
8. Government Structure Options
The San Jose Water Company is a private entity. Water service is provided to parcels within a service
area that has been approved by the CPUC. No government structure options were noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
The San Jose Water Company is a private entity operated under the direction of a 10-member Board of
Directors. Directors are elected by the shareholders to one-year terms. The SJWC maintains a website to
provide information to its customers (www.sjwater.com).
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 184
Private Water Purveyors: Stanford University
D. STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Overview
Stanford University is a private institution located in the northern portion of Santa Clara County; the
University owns land in six jurisdictions. Water service is provided by the Water Department within the
Stanford University Utilities Division. The University relies on imported water from SFPUC for its
domestic supply; groundwater provides a backup domestic supply. Surface water collected in two lakes is
used for irrigation and some fire suppression. Stanford serves an estimated population of 24,700; it
supplies a variety of academic facilities including housing, classrooms, laboratories, the Central Energy
Facility and athletic facilities. The University is a member of BAWSCA.
As a private entity, Stanford University is not subject to LAFCo purview and no determinations have been
included. The University is included in the report to ensure a comprehensive review of water service in
Santa Clara County.
1. Growth and Population
Stanford University owns 8,180 acres that lie within six jurisdictions. The lands are comprised of the
following:
Santa Clara County: Unincorporated 4,017 acres 50%
Palo Alto 1,161 acres 14%
San Mateo County: Unincorporated 2,701 acres 33%
Woodside 114 acres 1%
Menlo Park 111 acres 1%
Portola Valley 76 acres 1%
The land uses within Santa Clara County include academic, open space and agriculture. Portions of
Stanford lands are within the City of Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence. However,
due to the nature of the University, the rules, regulations and policy agreements relating to Urban Service
Areas are applied differently to Stanford than for other areas in the County. Land uses within the City of
Palo Alto include the Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford Research
Park, and apartment complexes.
Almost all development is concentrated in the central campus, with the foothills remaining essentially
undeveloped. The University, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto have entered into an
agreement that addresses land use, planning and annexation for Stanford. The 1985 Land Use Policy
Agreement sets forth the policies regarding land use, annexation, planning and development of Stanford
lands in Santa Clara County. It also defines what uses may remain in unincorporated area and what uses
must be annexed to the City of Palo Alto.
The University operates under a General Use Permit, which provides general approval for a specified
amount of development at Stanford. In 2000, the University applied for a new General Use Permit and
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 185
Private Water Purveyors: Stanford University
requested approval for an additional 2,035,000 square feet of building area and 2,350 housing units on
campus through 2010 (as well as 668 housing units for faculty and staff). As a part of the permit
application, the University developed the Stanford Community Plan that specifically addresses land use
policies on Stanford lands in unincorporated County areas. The Plan emphasizes two principles: 1)
compact and efficient urban development, and 2) conservation of natural resources.
Unlike other agencies that may count residential dwelling units or commercial buildings, the University
measures development by the square footage of building area. As of the Year 2000 the University had
12.3 million square feet of building area. Annual average development since 1989 has been 177,450
additional gross square feet, with 76% for academic, athletic and support facilities, and 24% for student
housing.2 The actual building rate has slowed through 2010. As a condition of approval, the Stanford
Community Plan/General Use Permit/Environmental Impact Report established a mitigation monitoring
and reporting program that required Stanford to demonstrate that it can feasibly mitigate the impact from
an increase in water consumption due to Stanford’s land use and development activity. As a result, the
Stanford University Water Conservation, Reuse and Recycling Master Plan was developed and adopted
in 2003.
Similar to Urban Growth Boundaries for cities, the University is subject to an Academic Growth
Boundary (AGB) as defined in the Community Plan. All development must occur within the AGB with
lands outside remaining in open space, with limited development. The AGB has been established for a
period of twenty-five years and any change would require a four-fifths majority vote of the County Board
of Supervisors.
The University Water Department currently serves an estimated population of 24,700. Population in 2030
is expected to be 27,924 which represents an average annual growth rate of 0.5%. Stanford currently
provides service to the following connections:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Domestic 1,414 100%
Irrigation/Agriculture 2
Total 1,416 100%
It should be noted that the number of connections is not a clear indication of service levels as it is with
other municipal water agencies. Typical campus housing is multi-family rather than single-family, and
the service connection types include laboratory/research, energy facilities, and athletic facilities.
The University is operating under a General Use Permit that acknowledges there will be additional
growth on the campus through 2010 as compared to the University’s historic growth rate. However, this
2 Stanford Community Plan. Growth and Development.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 186
Private Water Purveyors: Stanford University
growth will be concentrated within the AGB that has been established in the Stanford Community Plan.
The University has addressed the impacts of growth on water supply and infrastructure through its
planning process.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Stanford University’s water system infrastructure is comprised of the following:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 145 miles (Domestic)
Reservoirs (2 domestic, 2 nonpotable 2 (+ 2 lakes)
Total Water Storage Volume
1,385 AF (451.2 MG)
(domestic + nonpotable)
Pump Stations 4 (domestic water)
Wells 5
(500gpm * 4 wells; 1 well
Total Well Pumping Capacity
@1200gpm) = 4.6MGD
Pressure Zones 3
The majority of the University’s domestic system was installed in the 1960s, but some components date
back to the 1930s. All four storage facilities were rated in good to very good condition. The system is
efficient with only 6.6% of water unaccounted for due to leaks, etc. (The industry goal is under 10% as
set by the American Water Works Association). The Water Department carries out an annual flushing and
maintenance program to prevent water quality problems and leakage. All water connections are metered
and usage is tracked with a metering database.
Stanford does not have any treatment facilities, except fluoridation on site. Imported, pre-disinfected
water is purchased for domestic use; all wells except one produce groundwater that meets domestic water
quality standards and can be provided without any additional treatment. Surface water is filtered.
The University has two emergency interties. One is for the Stanford University hospital in Palo Alto;
Palo Alto has inadequate pressure at times and the University could provide water for fire suppression if
needed. The second intertie is for domestic water and is located on Sand Hill Road on the northern edge
of the campus.
Stanford has two lakes which collect non-potable surface water and serve as storage for irrigation and fire
suppression. A third lake is located on the west side of the campus in an area that is suitable for
groundwater recharge. The lake is not regularly filled, but the University uses this facility to recharge
groundwater as a condition of its General Use Permit. In FY 2002-2003, 2.3 million gallons were
recharged. To date, Stanford has not received credit from SCVWD for any recharge activity.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 187
Private Water Purveyors: Stanford University
Rather than a Capital Improvements Program, the University has a Utilities Improvement Program (UIP)
which is evaluated annually; this includes the water system as well as other utilities. The information is
tracked electronically so that preventative maintenance tasks can be scheduled.
Water Demand
The following table lists existing and projected water demands without conservation:
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand (2004) 2.5 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand (2003/4)
Existing Peak Demand 4.2 MGD
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2010) 3.6 MGD
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand
The University supplies water for a number of uses. Where feasible, external water demand is met by the
surface water stored in the lakes rather than domestic supply. The following table represents the indoor
(internal) and outdoor (external) water use patterns for the primary categories:
Internal Water Use External Water Use
Demand Type
(%) (%)
Student Housing 70 30
Faculty/Staff Housing 40 60
Academic 80 20
Athletics 45 55
Construction Projects 0 100
Leased Commercial Spaces 50 50
Medical School 75 25
Central Energy Facility 100 0
The University has been able to save over 100 million gallons through aggressive conservation efforts.
This includes technology, system upgrades, and landscape irrigation and design requirements that
maximize water use efficiency. The Stanford University Water Conservation, Reuse and Recycling
Master Plan was adopted in October 2003. This document provides the framework for future
conservation efforts and building requirements for new construction under the current General Use
Permit. These efforts have enabled the University to effectively manage demand.
Water Supply
Stanford relies on pre-treated water imported through SFPUC for its domestic supply. Groundwater
provides an emergency backup supply for domestic and backup supply for irrigation. Surface water,
stored in the University’s two lakes, is used for irrigation and fire suppression. The University’s supply
volumes are as follows:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 188
Private Water Purveyors: Stanford University
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume Total
(Contractual)
San Francisco Public Utility Commission 2.5 MGD 3.03 MGD 100%
Stanford receives its supply of pre-treated water from the SFPUC through two turnouts on the western
portion of the campus and one on the eastern side. The water is fluoridated at the turnouts. In 2003,
SFPUC changed its disinfection process from chlorine to chloramines to comply with changes in the US
EPA regulations. Some homeowners, and research projects in particular, have a high degree of sensitivity
to changes in water chemistry. The University spent a significant amount of time preparing for this
changeover, including working with researchers, plumbers and homeowners. The successful migration to
chloraminated water was viewed as a significant accomplishment for the Water Department.
Groundwater from four of the University’s wells meets domestic water quality standards, and it is used as
emergency domestic supply. The fifth well has naturally occurring manganese that exceeds acceptable
levels so it is used as a standby domestic well and for irrigation.
The surface water stored in the two lakes is delivered by a separate piping system. The water does not
meet domestic water quality standards and would require treatment, so it is used for irrigation and fire
suppression.
Recycled water is not currently used by Stanford; however the University is conducting a feasibility study
to evaluate sources, supply and demand. Water could be provided by the City of Palo Alto Regional
Water Quality Control Plant. Preliminary analysis indicates that it may become a viable option when
water quality and cost-effectiveness improve. Currently, the opportunity to reuse water from the Central
Energy Facility cooling tower and Heat Recovery Steam Generator for landscape irrigation is also being
considered.
Water Storage
Current domestic water storage is 8.2 MG, which can supply up to 3.2 days of average daily demand.
This is considered adequate by industry standards. In addition, four of the groundwater wells that meet
domestic water quality standards can serve as an additional source of supply in emergencies.
Summary
Stanford uses water from several sources to meet demands. It obtains its domestic supply from the
SFPUC. Groundwater is used for emergency domestic supply and irrigation; surface water is used for
irrigation and some fire suppression. The water system is actively managed for maintenance and
necessary improvements; water storage is adequate for current demand levels. The University is engaged
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 189
Private Water Purveyors: Stanford University
in an aggressive water conservation program that effectively manages demand. The University addresses
infrastructure needs through its planning process.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
The water service provided by Stanford University is funded through user charges; however the financing
is accounted for primarily through internal accounting. The charge-out rates are set annually to be within
5% of the water system’s actual expenditures.
The University did not provide any financial data for this review. However it was noted on the
questionnaire that the Utilities Division did undergo an internal audit in 2002 and audit results were not
qualified in any way.
Stanford has a AAA credit rating from Standard and Poor's. Water system capital costs are included with
all other utilities and building capital projects in establishing bond packages.
The Utilities Division has experienced a significant budget cut back within the past two years, which has
limited staffing and some maintenance programs. However, water service is essential to the academic
mission of the University. Water service financing is evaluated annually during the budgeting process.
The cost of water supply reliability versus quality is an ongoing concern for Stanford. Increasing water
costs are factored into the University’s budget; unlike other agencies, the revenues from water service do
not necessarily come from outside sources. Increasing water costs must be absorbed or compensated by
other University revenues.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
Stanford actively pursues cost avoidance opportunities related to the provision of water service. As noted
previously, the University has developed the Water Conservation, Reuse and Recycling Master Plan
which contains a detailed conservation plan and demand management measures to be used in conjunction
with development. It also participates in the Water Efficient Technology program sponsored by SCVWD,
earning a $35,000 rebate in FY 2003-2004.
The Utilities Division meters all water use so that water demand can be tracked and charge rates
established at the appropriate level. Cost savings are also realized through the use of functions provided
by other departments within the Utilities Division. Similar to other agencies, increasing regulatory
requirements and the associated costs for administration are an ongoing concern.
Stanford is a member of BAWSCA, utilizing the structure and functions of that agency to manage the
imported water supply from SFPUC.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 190
Private Water Purveyors: Stanford University
5. Management Efficiencies
The water system within the Utilities Division is managed by the following staff:
Staff Type Number FTE’s
Management/Administrative 1
Operational 3
Professional/Support 4
Total 11
Consultants are used on an as-needed basis and a certified laboratory is used for water quality analyses.
In addition to the Utilities Improvement Plan and the Water Conservation Plan, the University has
adopted an Emergency Response Plan which will increase efficiency in the event of an emergency. The
Water Department is also achieving management efficiencies through its inclusion in the structure of the
Utilities Division.
6. Shared Facilities
Stanford University shares facilities where appropriate with other agencies in order to reduce costs and
improve efficiencies. Stanford is a party to the 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement with the City of Palo
Alto and Santa Clara County. This agreement allows for increased coordination and planning with the
other jurisdictions.
The University is a member of BAWSCA, sharing the functions of that agency with other water retailers
that purchase water from SFPUC. It also participates in the Water Efficient Technology program
sponsored by the SCVWD as a part of its conservation efforts.
The Water Department also shares facilities within the Utilities Division with other campus utilities.
7. Rate Restructuring
Stanford’s water rates are established annually based on projected water system expenditures.
Supply Rates
The University is currently paying the following 2005 rates for its water supply:
SFPUC: Treated Water = $492/ac-ft
SCVWD: Groundwater Pump Tax = $405 ac-ft
SFPUC rates have increased 25% in the two year period from FY 2002 to 2004; the SCVWD
groundwater pumping tax has increased 14% in the same period. The University is expecting water
supply rates from SFPUC and SCVWD to continue to increase significantly over time, which will result
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 191
Private Water Purveyors: Stanford University
in rate increases for its water service. The cost of water supply reliability versus quality is an ongoing
concern for Stanford.
Demand Rates
Stanford charges a flat rate for water delivered through its system. The charge out rate in FY 2004 is
$4.35 per one thousand gallons. (Usage rates have increased 25% over the same two year period as
SFPUC supply rates.)
8. Government Structure Options
Stanford University is a private institution. Water service is provided on privately owned land to the
central campus area that lies within its boundaries. No government structure options were noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
Stanford provides information regarding potable water supply, conservation and water quality on its
website (http://facilities.stanford.edu/environment). Although the Utilities Division is not held to the
same accountability standards as a public agency, it is subject to federal audits and governed by the
guidelines of the University and applicable Federal and State regulations. The Utilities Division noted
that it has achieved a very good maintenance record and maintains a high level of customer service.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 192
Private Water Purveyors: West San Martin Water Works, Inc.
E. WEST SAN MARTIN WATER WORKS, INC.
Overview
West San Martin Water Works, Inc. is a private company providing water service in the unincorporated
San Martin area west of Monterey Road. The San Martin County Water District lies to the east. The
District serves 277 connections. The company has been in operation for a number of years, owned and
operated by the same family the entire time. The source of supply is groundwater.
As a private entity, West San Martin Water Works, Inc. is not subject to LAFCo purview and no
determinations have been included. The Company is included in the report to ensure a comprehensive
review of water service in Santa Clara County.
1. Growth and Population
West San Martin Water Works currently provides service to the following connections:
Connection Type Count Percent of Total
Residential 234 85%
Commercial/Manufacturing/Industrial 40 14%
Other – Governmental 3 1%
Total 277 100%
The company noted that it is expecting a 2% to 5% annual increase in population accompanied by a
related increase in water demand. The company usually adds a few new connections each year. Steady
growth is projected, consistent with growth estimates for the South County in general.
2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
West San Martin Water Works provides groundwater treatment and water distribution within its service
area. The water system is comprised of the following:
Facility Quantity
Pipelines 16 miles
Reservoirs (Tanks) 2
Total Water Storage Volume 0.55 MG
Pump Stations 2
Wells 3
Total Well Pumping Capacity NP
Pressure Zones 3
Two of the company’s wells have perchlorate treatment facilities provided by the Olin Corporation. Olin
has been identified as the manufacturing operation that originally created the perchlorate contamination.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 193
Private Water Purveyors: West San Martin Water Works, Inc.
Two of the wells have new pumps installed within the last year. The three reservoirs are rated in good to
excellent condition. They were each cleaned and inspected in 2003. 90% of the company’s customers
are in Pressure Zone 1.
Water Demands
According to data provided by the company and the SCVWD, West San Martin Water Works extracted
387.92 acre-feet in 2003.
Demand Quantity
Existing Average Annual Demand 0.35 MGD
Existing Maximum Day Demand NP
Existing Peak Hour Demand NP
Build-Out Average Annual Demand (2020) NP
Build-Out Maximum Day Demand NP
NP – Not provided
The company primarily serves residential accounts; it does not have a water conservation program. The
largest demand is from the Corde Valle Golf Course for irrigation. This property encompasses nearly half
of the company’s service area. It is irrigated with domestic water; recycled water is not available in the
area.
Water Supply
West San Martin Water Works relies on groundwater extracted from the Llagas Sub-basin, one of three
sub-basins of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The company has no interconnections to other
systems. Groundwater recharge is performed by the SCVWD, and the company pays a pump tax to cover
its share of those costs.
Maximum
Current Percent of
Supply Available
Volume Total
(Contractual)
SCVWD – groundwater 387.92 AF 100%
Total 387.92 AF 100%
West San Martin Water Works overlies the Llagas Sub-basin, as do the other water purveyors in the
South County. Groundwater quality is of critical concern, particularly with the continuing use of septic
systems in the San Martin area and previous manufacturing land use in the South County region. Septic
systems and agriculture are known to increase nitrate levels in groundwater. Perchlorate contamination
from previous manufacturing operations further north has been identified in the groundwater extracted
through the company’s wells. Water treatment facilities have been provided by Olin.
Recycled water is not available within the company’s service area.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 194
Private Water Purveyors: West San Martin Water Works, Inc.
Water Storage
The company has three storage facilities with a total capacity of 0.55 million gallons. The tanks are
regularly cleaned and inspected; all are rated in good to excellent condition. With this storage capacity,
the company is able to store a supply equal to 1½ days of average day demand.
Summary
West San Martin Water Works faces the same issues as the public water agencies in South County,
including rising costs and groundwater quality. It is treating contaminated water through a system
provided by the Olin Corporation. The company has adequate storage to meet demand.
3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities
West San Martin Water Works declined to provide proprietary financial information for this review.
4. Cost Avoidance Opportunities
No information was provided.
5. Management Efficiencies
West San Martin Water Works is a family business. Specific staffing information was not provided;
however it was noted that family members involved in the business handle all the tasks, including system
operations, billing and collections.
6. Shared Facilities
As a private entity, West San Martin Water Works has limited opportunities to share facilities. However,
if a collaborative water service planning effort is established between Morgan Hill, Gilroy, the County
and the San Martin County Water District, the private purveyors in the region should be included for
information purposes at a minimum.
The company is not participating in the Perchlorate Working Group, presumably due to the fact that it
settled with the Olin Corporation in exchange for a treatment facility.
7. Rate Restructuring
Supply Rates
The company pays a groundwater pump tax to the SCVWD to cover the costs associated with that
District’s groundwater recharge program. Rates have increased 67% since 2002, and the rapidly
increasing pump tax rate is an ongoing issue for the Company as it is not able to pass the full incremental
cost increase onto customers. The company is currently paying the following pump tax rate:
SCVWD: Groundwater = $200/AF
Most retailers of the SCVWD are expecting the pump tax rate to continue to increase significantly over
time, which will result in rate increases for the end users.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 195
Private Water Purveyors: West San Martin Water Works, Inc.
Demand Rates
The company did not provide specific information regarding its rate structure; however the Company is
subject to CPUC oversight and the Commission must approve all rate changes. The company noted that
average monthly bills vary from $20 per month in older parts of the service area to $400 for large estates
in peak use months.
8. Government Structure Options
West San Martin Water Works, Inc. is a private entity. Water service is provided to parcels within its
service area that has been approved by the California Public Utilities Commisison. No government
structure options were noted.
9. Local Accountability and Governance
West San Martin Water Works, Inc. is a private entity operated under the direction of a Board of
Directors consisting of three family members. Directors are elected or appointed at the company’s annual
meeting. The company provides service-related information to its customers as appropriate.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 196
55.. RELATED AGENCIES
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 197
Related Agencies: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
A. SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is a department of the City and County of San
Francisco that provides water, wastewater services, and municipal power to the City of San Francisco.
Under contractual agreements, 28 wholesale water agencies in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Counties also purchase water supplies from the SFPUC. The 28 wholesale customers comprise the Bay
Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The SFPUC’s existing water supplies are
from the Hetch Hetchy System and the Local Bay Area Watershed (San Mateo Creek, Pilarcitos Creek
and Alameda Creed Watersheds). The water providers in this area are dependent on this source of supply
to meet a portion of demand as the capacity of groundwater systems and the SCVWD’s imported water
systems are not sufficient to fully meet demand. The SFPUC’s major capital improvement program
underway will have a significant impact on the water purveyors and rate payers within the system’s
service area, providing greater reliability as well as long-term cost increases.
The SFPUC is not subject to the authority of Santa Clara LAFCo, and no determinations have been
included. The information is provided in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the water
resources of Santa Clara County.
Water System
SFPUC’s main water source is the Hetch Hetchy System. On average the Hetch Hetchy system provides
about 83% of the total SFPUC system supply. The Hetch Hetchy System is supplied by runoff from the
upper Tuolumne River watershed that is collected in three major reservoirs including the Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir. Water is delivered through a 167-mile gravity fed system to 2.4 million customers in Alameda,
Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties. The system was constructed in the 1920’s with the
first water deliveries occurring in 1934. The system crosses two major earthquake faults and includes
concrete and earthen dams, tunnels, reservoirs, and four major pipelines (two cross the San Francisco Bay
near the Dumbarton Bridge and two extend around the bay edge through portions of southern Alameda
County, northern Santa Clara County and into San Mateo County. The age of the system, the geography,
and the lack of capital improvements over the years has caused increasing concern about the integrity of
the system and its reliability in a major earthquake or other natural disaster.
Regional Capital Improvement Program
In May 2002, the SFPUC approved a $3.6 billion Capital Improvement Program to repair, replace and
seismically upgrade the system’s infrastructure. Approximately $715 million was designated for local
projects within the City and County of San Francisco; the majority, $2.9 billion, was for regional projects.
The cost for the local projects within San Francisco will be paid only by customers within San Francisco;
the cost for the regional projects will be borne by customers in San Francisco as well as the 28 water
wholesalers within the three counties. The magnitude of this program and its potential impact on regional
water service led to three legislative actions.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 198
Related Agencies: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
First, AB 2058 (Papan) established the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) in
2003. This agency is the successor to the former Bay Area Water Users Association and its 28-member
Board of Directors includes a representative from each of the water wholesalers. BAWSCA is the only
entity with the authority to directly represent the interests of the water agencies that purchase water from
San Francisco on a wholesale basis. As such, it provides crucial oversight on the SFPUC water service
facilities jointly with other local public agencies or on its own to carry out the agency’s purposes.
The second piece of legislation, SB 1879 (Speier) established the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water
System Financing Authority. The Authority is a regional organization with the power to raise money, if
needed, to finance the regional system improvements. BAWSCA provides administrative support to the
Authority.
Lastly, the State Legislature passed a third piece of legislation, AB 1823 (Papan) in response to increasing
concern over accountability, cost escalation and schedule for the regional projects. AB 1823 requires the
SFPUC to submit annual progress reports to the State Department of Health Services, Seismic Safety
Commission, and Joint Legislative Audit Committee on implementation of its Capital Improvement
Program. The legislation also requires the Commission to provide prompt notification of any changes in
capital projects, costs and timelines. In September 2004 a new General Manager was appointed to
manage the SFPUC. This change in leadership provided an opportunity for the SFPUC to re-evaluate the
program, implement operational changes, and update cost and schedule projections.
A number of changes have been implemented within the past few months to rectify existing problems. To
improve accountability, it was decided that separate monthly progress reports will be prepared for the
Local CIP and Regional CIP. The SFPUC Management Team has initiated a complete review of the
program. A staffing plan has been completed in order to avoid any further project delays and the SFPUC
has asked that the data be corroborated by independent consultants. In addition, management issued a
Memorandum defining “Project Phase Milestones/Deliverables.” Each project will be monitored by the
Project Controls Group and each project manager’s performance will be evaluated based on schedule and
deliverables. This level of information will allow the Santa Clara agencies to better monitor progress and
understand project changes as they occur.
Costs
As of November 2004 total expenditures to date for regional projects were $32 million, or 1.8% of the
Program Budget. It was expected that 50% of the cost would have been expended within the first three
years. Cost-to-Complete projections have also changed significantly. The original budget of $2.9 billion
has escalated to $3.3 billion, an increase of $423 million. This is due to a number of factors, including the
following:
• $158 million for an increased scope of work for the Irvington Tunnel, Bay Division Pipeline
Hydraulic Capacity Upgrade and Sunol Valley WTP New Treated Water Reservoir
• $20 million for the addition of three new projects: SFPUC/EBMUD Intertie, SF Desalination
and a Programmatic EIR
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 199
Related Agencies: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
• $37 million for increased planning and environmental review
• $126 million for increased management contingency and bond cost
The $3.3 billion estimate includes a Contingency and Management Reserve of $376 million and an
additional 5% construction contingency for each project.
The recent cost increases indicate a degree of inadequate planning in the early stages of the program as
well as the lack of foresight to include an adequate contingency budget for unforeseen project changes.
For example, when the Cost-to-Complete analysis was done, it was revealed that there was no budget for
Right-of-Way acquisition as it was assumed that all work would be done within the existing right-of-way.
This assumption is no longer valid and the right-of-way costs for the Irvington Tunnel/Alameda Siphons
are now estimated at $20 million. The original budget included $10 million for an environmental impact
report that is now budgeted at $145 million. These cost increases will significantly impact all of the water
wholesalers and retail customers, including those in Santa Clara County. BAWSCA has contracted with
an independent consultant to review the SFPUC CIP budget and program expenditures to date. Based on
the 2002 cost projections, it was estimated that the average monthly water bill for customers in the three
counties would increase from $32 to $71 by 2015. It is unknown how the additional $423 million in cost
will affect this.
Schedule
In terms of schedule, the SFPUC reported in November that 22 regional projects were ahead of schedule,
2 were on schedule and 15 were behind schedule. This was substantially the same as that reported in July
2004. The SFPUC Management Team is conducting a complete review of each project scope to
determine its expected benefit and priority. This effort will include developing performance standards
against which each project can be measured.
Summary
The SFPUC has stated that improved management measures and tighter project controls have been
implemented in the past few months. New leadership in the SFPUC has provided an opportunity to
confront project issues and implement corrective actions. The in-depth project level analysis that has
occurred recently should daylight any planning or cost discrepancies. Inclusion of a management
contingency reserve and construction contingency in the budget should also help avoid further dramatic
cost increases. BAWSCA is closely monitoring the situation and receives regular updates from the
SFPUC. The agencies within Santa Clara County that rely on Hetch Hetchy water must have some
degree of certainty regarding CIP costs and project completion schedule as this will directly affect the
rates and reliability they can provide to their retail customers.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 200
Related Agencies: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
B. BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY
The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) was formed in 2003 by a special act
of the Legislature to represent the interests of the 26 cities and water districts, and two private utilities in
Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties that purchase water on a wholesale basis from the San
Francisco regional water system. The Agency does not own or manage any infrastructure nor provide any
water supply.
The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency is a special district per AB 2058 (2002 Water Code
§81300 et seq.); however its jurisdiction only includes a portion of Santa Clara County and Santa Clara
LAFCo is not the principal LAFCo. Therefore, no determinations have been included in this review. The
information is provided in order to ensure a comprehensive review of Santa Clara County’s water
resources and related agencies.
Agency Overview and Services
BAWSCA is the successor to the former Bay Area Water Users Association, formed in 1958. Each of the
28 wholesalers in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties receiving water from the SFPUC system
is automatically eligible as a member of the agency. The total service area represented encompasses 460
square miles with an estimated population of 1,700,000. BAWSCA’s current programs include water
contract negotiation and administration, capital improvement program oversight, and financial analyses,
and water resources planning. The Agency operates with 6 staff members – one Executive/
Management and five Professional/Support.
BAWSCA represents the SFPUC wholesalers’ common interest, providing greater collaboration and
efficiency in oversight of this source of supply, particularly at a policy level. In light of the ongoing
concern regarding the status and progress of the SFPUC Regional CIP, BAWSCA recently contracted
with an independent engineering consultant to review the SFPUC CIP budget and program expenditures
to date.
All of SFPUC’s wholesale contracts will expire in 2009. BAWSCA will be renegotiating a master
contract with the SFPUC on behalf of its members and each of the wholesalers will have an individual
contract directly with SFPUC per the terms and conditions of the master agreement. One critical area in
which BAWSCA has been instrumental is establishing an appropriate water supply allocation among the
agencies during drought periods. The existing master agreement contained a default for water allocations
during drought that did not encourage water conservation was not in the best interests of the individual
service areas in the region. BAWSCA successfully negotiated a new water shortage allocation agreement
that was approved by all the governing boards and provides greater reliability to the wholesalers and San
Francisco.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 201
Related Agencies: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
Environmental compliance for the SFPUC Capital Improvements Program requires that a Program EIR be
prepared. As part of this analysis, detailed water use projections for each agency were prepared with the
assistance of BAWSCA. The data has been published in three technical studies:
1) SFPUC Wholesale Customer Water Demand Projections;
2) SFPUC Wholesale Customer Water Conservation Potential; and
3) SFPUC Wholesale Customer Recycled Water Potential.
The combined results of these technical studies for the wholesale and retail service areas along with
projected purchase estimates in 2030 are presented in a final technical report “2030 Purchase Estimates
Technical Memorandum” (December 2004).
The Agency also provides water conservation services for its member agencies. The services provided
complement those of the SCVWD but do not duplicate activities or cost. The program is designed by
BAWSCA’s member agencies and is provided through contractors. The charge to the participating
agencies covers the cost of the program as well as BAWSCA’s administrative time.
Financial Summary
BAWSCA is funded through assessments of each of its member agencies, based on a percentage of each
agency’s annual budget. The percentage is proportionate to the amount of SFPUC water used in 2000-
2001. Assessment rates are reviewed annually. In addition to assessment revenue, BAWSCA has been
successful in pursuing grant funding. The Agency was awarded a $240,000 grant by the State
Department of Water Resources in FY 2003-2004. The Agency’s financial summary is shown below:
BAWSCA – FY 2002-2003 Financial Summary
Revenue - Assessments $1,366,621 92%
Reserves $80,000 5%
Other $37,947 3%
Total $1,484,568 100%
Expenses - Expenses $1,291,184 99%
Capital Improvements $9,088 1%
Total $1,300,272 100%
Reserves $351,198
The last independent audit was conducted in July 2003 for BAWUA, the predecessor of BAWSCA. The
audit was not qualified in any way. BAWSCA does have the authority to issue bonds, however it
currently has no long-term debt.
Shared Facilities
BAWSCA is a party to several MOUs including the following:
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 202
Related Agencies: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
• Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC): BAWSCA and six other agencies participate
in activities of BAWAC, which funds and conducts studies of various issues
• Enlarged Los Vaqueros MOU (CALFED): CALFED Studies
• Bay Area Water Quality and Supply Reliability Program MOU (BAWQSRP): CALFED
Studies
• Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
BAWSCA participates in the insurance pools offered by the California Special Districts Association,
ACWA and CalPers.
BAWSCA provides administrative support for the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water System
Financing Authority created by SB 1870 (2002 Water Code §81600 et seq.). The Authority will serve as
the means to issue revenue bonds to finance the regional system improvements.
Local Accountability and Governance
BAWSCA is governed by a 28-member Board of Directors serving four-year terms. Twenty-six of the
directors are appointed by the governing bodies of the public agencies that are members of BAWSCA. In
addition, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors appoints a Director from the Stanford University
service area and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors appoints a director from the California
Water Service Company service area.
The Board meets bimonthly on the third Thursday at 7:00 PM in Foster City. Meeting notices and
agendas are distributed by email, posted on BAWSCA’s website, and circulated to the City Clerks, Clerks
of the Board and District Secretaries for posting. BAWSCA also maintains a website that contains
detailed information on the Agency and its current projects and programs (www.bawsca.org).
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 203
Glossary
66.. GLOSSARY
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 204
Glossary
Adjudicated Groundwater Basin: A form of groundwater management in which the groundwater rights
of all the overliers and appropriators are determined in court. The court also decides 1) who the
extractors are, 2) how much groundwater those well owners may produce, and 3) who the Watermaster
will be to ensure that basin is managed in accordance with the court’s ruling.
Acre-foot: The volume of water needed to cover one acre at a depth of one foot; equal to 325,851
gallons. As a general rule of thumb, one acre-foot serves the water needs of two families for one year.
Annexation: The inclusion, attachment of addition of territory to a city or special district.
Commercial Paper: Short-term, unsecured, discounted, and negotiable notes sold by one company to
another in order to satisfy immediate cash needs
Certificate of Participation: Financing in which an individual buys a share of the lease revenues of an
agreement made by a municipal or governmental entity, rather than the bond being secured by those
revenues.
Cubic Foot: a volume of water equal to 7.4805195 gallons; 1 CCF equals 748 gallons
Dependent Special District: A special district whose board of directors is another legislative body, such
as a city council or board of supervisors.
Detachment: The exclusion, de-annexation, deletion, or removal from a city or district.
Dissolution: The termination or disincorporation of the existence of a district.
Independent Special District: A special district that has a directly elected board of directors.
Sphere of Influence: A plan, adopted by LAFCO, for the probable physical boundaries and service areas
of a city or district.
Sphere of Influence Amendment: The changing or updating of an adopted sphere of influence.
Tertiary: Third level treatment of wastewater; wastewater that receives tertiary treatment may be sold as
recycled water for landscape and industrial uses. DHS establishes water quality standards and treatment
reliability criteria for water recycling under Title 22, Chapter 4, of the California Code of Regulations.
For water reuse applications with a high potential for the public to come in contact with the reclaimed
water, Title 22 requires disinfected tertiary treatment.
Watershed stewardship: The management of natural resources in a manner that fosters ecosystem
health, improved water quality, flood protection and compatible recreational opportunities.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 205
77.. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Water System Regulations for Santa Clara County
Appendix B: Recycled Water
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 206
Appendix A: Water System Regulations
A. WATER SYSTEM REGULATIONS FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Water systems in Santa Clara County are regulated by a number of agencies, depending on the type of
entity (public or private) and size of system (number of connections). The regulatory oversight includes
both operational for service areas, system capacity and rates, and health for water quality.
The agencies and their areas of regulatory authority are shown in the table below:
TYPE OF SYSTEM
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 207
htlaeH
latnemnorivnE
fo
.tpeD
,ytnuoC
secivreS
htlaeH
fo
.tpeD
,etatS
noissimmoC
seitilitU
cilbuP
,etatS
tcirtsiD
retaW
yellaV
aralC
atnaS
Individual (1 connection) ● ●
Shared (2 – 4 service connections) ● ● ●
Small (5 – 14 service connections) “State Small Water Systems” ● ● ●
Public (at least 15 service connections) ● ● ● ●
A public water system is defined as a system, regardless of ownership, for the provision of water for
human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or more service
connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year (Health &
Safety Code §116275(h)). Therefore, a private water company or mutual is considered a public water
system and subject to the applicable regulations for its water source and system size.
Some of the regulations applicable to water systems within the County include the following:
• California Health and Safety Code
• California Public Utilities Code
• California Public Utilities Commission: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
governs the provision of water by private entities, including service area, system design, levels of
service and rates. The Commission regulates investor-owned water systems, but does not have
jurisdiction over municipal utilities or districts. Mutual water companies or companies owned by
homeowner associations are exempt if they serve only their stockholders or members. The
following General Orders apply:
Appendix A: Water System Regulations
o General Order No. 103: Rules Governing Water Service Including Minimum Standards
for Design and Construction, and
o General Order No. 96-A, Rules Governing the Filing and Posting of Schedules of Rates,
Rules, and Contracts.
• County of Santa Clara Ordinance Code:
o Division B7, Section 12 addresses water supply for fire flow and authorizes the County
Fire Marshall to determine adequacy based on location and building types
o Division B11 - Environmental Health includes the County regulations for construction of
individual or small private water systems and State Small Water Systems.
• Santa Clara Valley Water District Well Ordinance 90-1 regulates the classification, construction
and destruction of wells within Santa Clara County. All wells must be classified as active,
inactive or abandoned/unused. Active wells within the Districts’ groundwater charge zones are
subject to the District’s groundwater production requirements and require the filing of
groundwater production statements. Any change in well status requires a permit issued by the
District, including new well construction and abandonment.
Individual Private Water System – 1 connection
A private water system which receives water from a well and serves only one owner is not subject to the
regulatory authority of the State. Local regulations are primarily related to new well construction or
abandonment. For any new system, a clearance must be obtained from the County through the
Department of Environmental Health prior to construction. As a condition of approval, the applicant
must demonstrate acceptable water quality through lab testing and analysis, the reliability of water supply,
and adequate storage. Source capacity must be equal to or exceed a sustained 2.5 gallons per minute
during a twenty-four period of continuous pumping, or until 3,600 gallons have been achieved during a
time period of twenty-four hours or less of continuous pumping. In addition, a sustained 2.5 gallons-per-
minute yield must be demonstrated during the dry season of August through October. Minimum required
storage capacity is 1,000 gallons.
In addition, the system is subject to the SCVWD’s Well Ordinance 90-1 and a permit must be obtained
prior to construction. Any change in the well’s status, including abandonment, requires a permit to
change the classification.
System maintenance and water quality monitoring is the responsibility of the system’s owner.
Shared Water System – 2 to 4 connections
The regulatory authority for shared systems with two to four connections is similar to that of individual
systems, with a few exceptions. A clearance must be obtained from the County prior to construction. As
with individual systems, the same requirements apply for water quality, adequate supply and storage with
the minimum capacity applicable to each connection.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 208
Appendix A: Water System Regulations
If the system is operated as a corporation, association or mutual water company and only providing water
to its stockholders and members at cost, or to the State or any state agency or department, or any public
district (city, county, school district, etc.), or federal agency for use in fire protection or park operations,
then it is not subject to the regulation of the California Public Utilities Commission. In addition, mutual
water companies may provide water in an emergency to property located within or adjacent to the service
area of the mutual without changing the mutual’s status.
If the system is providing water to anyone other than the above, the water company will be subject to the
regulatory oversight of the Public Utilities Commission. The system would have to be approved by the
CPUC for its operational components, including service area, system capacity and rates.
If the system’s water source includes groundwater, it is subject to the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s
Well Ordinance 90-1 as described above. Water quality is monitored by the individual owners; neither
the County nor the California Department of Health Services inspects these smaller systems.
Small Water System – 5 to 14 connections (State Small Water Systems)
Water systems with five to fourteen connections are known as “State Small Water Systems.” A permit
from the County’s Department of Environmental Health is required for construction and operation. Any
change in ownership requires submission of a new application. No permit will be issued if water service
for each or all connections is available from an existing public, private or mutual water system. As a
condition of approval, the applicant must demonstrate that there is adequate system capacity to supply a
minimum of three gallons per minute for at least twenty-four hours for each connection.
As with the smaller systems described above, ownership determines operational oversight. If it is
operated as a corporation, association or mutual water company and only providing water to its owners or
stockholders, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the CPUC. If it is providing water to anyone else, it
will be subject to the jurisdiction of the CPUC and General Order Nos. 103 and 96-A.
If the system’s water supply includes groundwater, it is subject to the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s
Well Ordinance 90-1 as described above, requiring the appropriate permitting and reporting for
construction, inactivity and abandonment.
The County of Santa Clara’s Department of Environmental Health is responsible for monitoring the State
Small Water Systems within the County for water quality. System operators are required to submit
testing results at least once every three months. In addition, the State Department of Health Services may
monitor systems with less than 15 service connections that meet the population threshold of 25
individuals served daily at least 60 days out of the year.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 209
Appendix A: Water System Regulations
Public Water System – 15 or more connections
Water systems with 15 or more connections that serve at least 25 individuals at least 60 days out of the
year are considered public water systems. These typically include county and municipal water districts,
private water companies and larger mutual water companies. The public water agencies are subject to the
numerous code sections in both the State’s Public Utilities Code and Health and Safety Code. Private
water companies are subject to the regulatory oversight of the CPUC as described above. Mutuals do not
fall under the Commission’s purview provided they meet the service limitations described above.
If the system’s water source includes groundwater, it will be subject to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District’s Well Ordinance 90-1 as described above, requiring the appropriate permitting and reporting.
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) monitors the water quality of the systems with
regular inspections, testing, and reporting.
Water System Ownership Changes
Acquiring or abandoning water systems requires various actions on the part of the system’s operator,
depending on the circumstances.
For those systems under the purview of the California Department of Health Services:
If two systems consolidate and the service boundaries do not change, no additional permitting by DHS is
required. The owners must inform DHS of the responsible party and contact information. If the service
boundaries change, additional permitting may be required and the applicant must demonstrate adequate
water supply. If a new water source is involved (i.e. a new well or acquisition of an existing well), the
entity acquiring the new source will be required to obtain a permit.
If the systems consolidate and one of the systems will be abandoned completely, no permitting is
required. However, the owner of the abandoned system must request declassification as a public water
system, which will make the existing permit null and void. In addition, DHS will require verification that
the system has been disconnected and can no longer be used for potable supply. Wells do not have to be
destroyed but it is preferable to ensure there is no potential for groundwater contamination.
For those systems under the purview of the County Department of Environmental Health:
A change in ownership of a State Small Water System will require the submission of a new application.
If two systems consolidate and the new company will provide service to each house served by the former
company, the County will approve the change. If the water company is connecting directly to the
previous system’s supply tank, no permit is required. However, if the customers of the previous company
are now connecting directly to the new company’s system, an application will be required. The County
will require a letter from the water purveyor regarding the proposed provision of services, capacity,
supply and storage.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 210
Appendix A: Water System Regulations
Fire Flow Requirements
Adequate fire flow is determined by the County Fire Marshall in accordance with the 2001 California Fire
Code and 2000 Uniform Fire Code. Section B7-12 of the County’s Ordinance Code states that the Fire
Marshall shall be guided by the fire flow requirements include in Appendix III-A of the 2000 Uniform
Fire Code, which identifies fire flow requirements and fire protection systems based on the type of
construction and occupancy and size of the building. The Fire Marshall does have some discretion to
grant variances depending on the local conditions such as land use, structures, and fire risk.
For those entities under the regulation of the CPUC, General Order No. 103 Section VIII includes fire
protection standards. However, these are considered appropriate for application on an average statewide
basis and the standards of the local fire protection agency govern. Specific areas with less than the
minimum fire flow requirement indicated in G.O. 103 are registered with the CPUC and mapped.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 211
Appendix B: Recycled Water
B. RECYCLED WATER
Recycled water is produced at four wastewater treatment plants, one in the South County and three in the
North County.
The SCVWD has completed an Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Feasibility Study to evaluate
potential new markets and uses for recycled water if its quality were enhanced. The District has also
approved funding to pilot advanced treatment technology of local recycled water. The advanced
treatment will improve the overall quality of the tertiary treated wastewater so that it will not impact the
quality of the groundwater basin. The District will be the recycled water wholesaler in the future Coyote
Valley development, per an existing agreement. This advanced treatment technology is vital in ensuring
that recycled water quality is appropriate for the uses in Coyote Valley.
South County
Wastewater from Gilroy and Morgan Hill is treated at the South County Regional Wastewater Authority
facility in Gilroy. The Authority is a joint effort of the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill; the recycled
water distribution system is owned by the SCVWD. The wastewater that is treated to a tertiary level is
made available to certain areas of Gilroy for large irrigation customers. The cost to deliver recycled water
into Morgan Hill has been prohibitive and therefore no lines currently extend into that city.
The Plant’s treatment capacity is being expanded to 9 MGD.
North County
In northern Santa Clara County, recycled water is produced at three facilities: the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant in Palo Alto, the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, and the Sunnyvale
Water Pollution Control Plant. The Regional Water Quality Control Plant Water Reuse Program serves
the cities of East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Stanford. The
Plant’s functions are primarily intended to reduce pollutants and mitigate for wastewater discharged into
San Francisco Bay. Recycled water is an important secondary benefit and is currently provided to the
Palo Alto Golf Course, the Emily Renzel Marsh and Greer Park. A new pipeline is being designed that
will increase service capacity to the Mountain View/Moffett area and restore service to Shoreline Golf
Course.
The second facility producing recycled water is the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant. Currently,
the recycled distribution infrastructure is only in the northern portion of Sunnyvale. Through FY 2003-
2004, the City has invested $20.2 million in the water reuse system. The phase completed in FY 2003-
2004 included a storage tank and increased production capacity to 2 million gallons per day.
The third facility is the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant which treats wastewater from
a 300 square mile area including San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos,
Saratoga and Monte Sereno. The Plant is located in Alviso and has the capacity to treat 167 million
gallons per day. Approximately 10% is advance treated to tertiary levels and sold for landscape,
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 212
Appendix B: Recycled Water
agricultural and industrial uses. The remaining 90% is discharged as fresh water through the Artesian
Slough and into South San Francisco Bay.
Associated with that facility is South Bay Water Recycling, a program that has a number of partnering
agencies, including the Cities of San Jose, Milpitas, and Santa Clara; five sanitation districts; the San Jose
Water Company and the Great Oaks Water Company; the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the US
Bureau of Reclamation. The SBWR system includes over 100 miles of pipeline to serve the three cities.
The program has approximately 450 customers and delivers 13 to 18 million gallons of recycled water per
day. The system extends down to the Coyote Valley area.
The SCVWD subsidizes any recycled water project in the North County that offsets the demand for
SCVWD treated water at $115 per acre foot of recycled water developed.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 213
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 5750 Almaden Expressway Service Area 1,291 sq miles
San Jose CA 95188-3686 Population Served: 1,729,417
Contact: Rick L. Callender Projected Population:
2010 1,879,700
Phone: (408) 265 2607 ext. 2017
2015 1,949,500
Email/Website: rcallender@valleywater.org
2020 2,007,500
www.valleywater.org 2025 2,064,200
Type: Wholesale Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees 903
No. of Connections per Employee NA
Average Daily Demand (MGD)
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 210 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months
Miles of Pipe: 142 miles
No. of Pump Stations: 3
No. of Pressure Zones: NP
Storage Capacity 28.7 mg
Financial Information (FY 2004-2005) (in thousands)
Revenues: $249,357.6 Expenses: $183,527.9 Reserves: $149,614.6 CIP: $120,500.4
Wholesale Rates
North County Contract $495 AF
North County Groundwater $405 AF M/I $40.50 Agricultural
South County $200 AF M/I $20.00 Agricultural
Service Connections Within Outside Outside
Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 0 0 0
Agriculture 34 34 0 68
Recycled 16 0 0 16
Other 76 0 0 76
Total 126 34 0 160
Supply Information - Countywide (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 182,500 262,800
Groundwater 74,300 112,000
Surface 90,500 101,000
Recycled 8,200 20,000
Total 355,500 496-546,000
Average Annual Demand Information - Countywide (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Mun/Inst 371,153 390,205 409,348 426,221 443,205
Agriculture 60,169 56,309 52,462 48,624 44,799
Conservation (10,345) (26,560) (38,478) (45,819) (52,715)
Total 420,977 419,954 423,332 429,026 435,289
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 214
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
ALDERCROFT HEIGHTS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: PO Box 66349 Service Area 2.5 sq miles
Population Served: 190
Scotts Valley, CA 95067 Projected Population:
Contact: Kim Gardner, Manager 2010 190
Phone: (408) 353-4255 2015 190
Email/Website: Aldercroft_hcwd@yahoo.com 2020 190
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 0
No. of Connections per Employee NA
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 0.025 MGD (seasonal)
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 0.037 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months NP
Miles of Pipe: 3.6
No. of Pump Stations: 2
No. of Pressure Zones: 3
Storage Capacity 0.37 MG
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $165.3 Expenses: $116.5 Reserves: $108.0 CIP: $42.9
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge -0- Water Charge: $259.00 Monthly Bill: $259.00
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 119 NA NA 119
Agriculture 0 NA NA 0
Recycled 0 NA NA 0
Other 0 NA NA 0
Total 119 NA NA 119
Supply Information (AF/Yr)**
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0
Surface* 22 22 22 22 22
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0
Total 22 22 22 22 22
* Source: Los Gatos Creek
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)**
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential 22 22 22 22 22
Comm/Ind. NA NA NA NA NA
Landscape/Irr NA NA NA NA NA
Other NA NA NA NA NA
Total 22 22 22 22 22
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 215
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
PURISSIMA HILLS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 26375 Fremont Rd. Service Area 7.8 sq miles
Los Altos Hills CA, 94022 Population Served: 6,000
Projected Population:
Contact: Patrick D. Walter 2010
Phone: (650) 948-1217 2015
Email/Website: pwalter@phwd.dst.ca.us 2020
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 8
No. of Connections per Employee 266
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 2.5 MGD
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 4.0 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months 21 (cloudy water)
Miles of Pipe: 101
No. of Pump Stations: 5
No. of Pressure Zones: 4
Storage Capacity 10.0 MG
Financial Information (FY 2004-2005) (in thousands)
Revenues: $3,406.7 Expenses: $2,843.9 Reserves: $1,229.8 CIP: $263.6
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $13.50 Water Charge: $41.00 Monthly Bill: $54.50
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 2,034 0 0 2,034
Agriculture 0 0 0 0
Recycled 0 0 0 0
Other 96 0 0 96
Total 2,129 0 0 2,129
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 1,820 1,820
Groundwater 0 0
Surface 0 0
Recycled 0 0
Total 1,820 1,820
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr) - (source: 2004 Rate Study)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential 2,072 2,299 2,463 2,629 2,7974
Comm/Ind. 165 234 238 244 248
Landscape/Irr 0 0 0 0 0
Other 64 0 0 0 0
Total 2,301 2,533 2,701 2,873 3,045
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 216
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
SAN MARTIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: PO Box 120 Service Area 0.71 sq miles
San Martin, CA 95046 Population Served:
Projected Population:
Contact: Peter Forest, District Manager 2010
Phone: (408) 683-4101 2015
Email/Website: peterforest@att.net 2020
2025
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees:
No. of Connections per Employee
Average Daily Demand (MGD)
Maximum Day Demand (MGD)
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months
Miles of Pipe:
No. of Pump Stations:
No. of Pressure Zones:
Storage Capacity
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $ Expenses: $ Reserves: $110 CIP: $
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge Water Charge: Monthly Bill:
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 184
Agriculture 0
Recycled 0
Other 0
Total 184
Supply Information (AF/Yr)**
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported
Groundwater
Surface
Recycled
Total
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)**
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential
Comm/Ind.
Landscape/Irr
Other
Total
NA – not applicable
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 217
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
PACHECO PASS WATER DISTRICT
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: PO Box 1382 Service Area NP
Population Served: NP
Hollister, CA 95024 Projected Population:
Contact: Patricia Richardson, Secretary 2010 NP
Phone: (831) 637-0566 / (831) 637-8646 fax 2015 NP
Email/Website: 2020 NP
Type: Groundwater recharge (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 1.5
No. of Connections per Employee NA
Average Daily Demand (MGD) NA
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) NA
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months NP
Miles of Pipe: 0
No. of Pump Stations: 0
No. of Pressure Zones: 0
Storage Capacity 6,500 AF
Financial Information (FY 2003-2004) (in thousands)
Revenues: $23.2 Expenses: $84.9 Reserves: $182.7 CIP: $68.4
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge NA Water Charge: NA Monthly Bill: NA
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic NA NA NA NA
Agriculture NA NA NA NA
Other NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NA
Supply Information (AF/Yr)**
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported NA NA NA NA NA
Groundwater NA NA NA NA NA
Surface* NA NA NA NA NA
Recycled NA NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NA NA
* Source: Los Gatos Creek
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)**
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential NA NA NA NA NA
Comm/Ind. NA NA NA NA NA
Landscape/Irr NA NA NA NA NA
Other NA NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NA NA
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
The Pacheco Pass Water District collects local surface runoff to be stored and released for groundwater recharge.
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 218
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
GUADALUPE-COYOTE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 888 North First St., Room 204 Service Area 565 sq miles
Population Served: NP
San Jose, CA 95112-6314 Projected Population:
Contact: Nancy Bernardi, Conservation 2010 NP
Coordinator 2015 NP
Phone: (408) 288-5888 2020 NP
Email/Website: gcrcd@pacbell.net www.gcrcd.org
Type: Independent Special District
Agency Information
No. of Employees: 1
Sources of Revenue Property Tax (93%)
Investment Income (3%)
Government Aid (4%)
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $118.6 Expenses: $131.0 Reserves: $146.3 CIP: NA
Services Provided / Agency Goals
(cid:131) Provides conservation service to northern Santa Clara County, including the hilly/mountainous land
surrounding Santa Clara Valley north of Morgan Hill (service area drains to San Francisco Bay)
(cid:131) Conservation Planning and Application through USDA NRCS
(cid:131) Watershed Management Participation for Santa Clara Basin
(cid:131) Floodplain Management Improvement
(cid:131) Promote Proper Stream Design to Reduce Sediment by achieving Proper Stream Functions
(cid:131) Riparian Corridor Management Improvement
(cid:131) Waterway Protection and Restoration Improvement on both Streams and Erosive Land
(cid:131) Increase Habitat Preservation Efforts
(cid:131) Increase Erosion/Pollution Prevention Efforts
(cid:131) Farm/Range Land Management Improvement
(cid:131) Promote Pesticide, Herbicide and Chemical Alternatives
(cid:131) Promote Responsible Invasive Species Control
(cid:131) Promote Native Species Protection and Information Dissemination
(cid:131) Promote and Conduct Scientific Studies/Education
(cid:131) Promote Important Farmland Preservation
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 219
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
LOMA PRIETA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 810 Wayward Lane, Suite 1D Service Area NP
Population Served: NP
Gilroy, CA 95020 Projected Population:
Contact: Patricia Marfia, Office Manager 2010 NP
Phone: (408) 847-4171 2015 NP
Email/Website: none 2020 NP
Type: Dependent Special District
Agency Information
No. of Employees: 0.5
Sources of Revenue Property Tax (100%)
Workshop Fees (misc.)
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $28.0 Expenses: $36.1 Reserves: 0.5 CIP: NA
Services Provided / Agency Goals
(cid:131) Provides service to southern Santa Clara County (service area drains to Monterey Bay)
(cid:131) Advise and assist private property owners and public agencies in the prevention of soil erosion, runoff
control, development and use of water, land use planning, conservation of wildlife and other related natural
resources.
(cid:131) Offer public information and education programs
(cid:131) Offer land management / runoff control programs to landowners who have been contacted by the RWQCB
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 220
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
CITY OF GILROY
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 7351 Rosanna Street Service Area 14.65 sq miles
Gilroy, CA 95020 Population Served: 44,975
Projected Population:
Contact: Jay Baksa, City Administrator 2010 56,407
Phone: (408) 846-0400 2015 60,820
Email/Website: jay@ci.gilroy.ca.us 2020 65,082
www.ci.gilroy.ca.us
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 18
No. of Connections per Employee 642
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 7.4 MGD
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 13.7 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months 16
Miles of Pipe: 120
No. of Pump Stations: 6 booster
No. of Pressure Zones: 3
Storage Capacity 14.07
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $4,852 Expenses: $4,646 Reserves: $0 CIP: $864
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $4.83 Water Charge: $17.45 Monthly Bill: $22.28
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 10,324 1 NA 10325
Agriculture/Irrig 392 1 NA 393
Recycled 3 0 NA 3
Other 837 2 NA 839
Total 11,556 4 NA 11,560
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater 17,362 25,539 32,036 32,036 34,500
Surface 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0
Total 17,362 25,539 32,036 32,036 34,500
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)**
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential 5250 NP NP NP NP
Comm/Ind. 1328 NP NP NP NP
Landscape/Irr 715 NP NP NP NP
Other NA NP NP NP NP
Total 7293 9,857 11,425 12,210 13,106
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 221
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
CITY OF MILPITAS
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 455 E. Calaveras Blvd. Service Area 13.6
Milpitas, CA 95035 Population Served: 64,000
Projected Population:
Contact: Darryl Wong 2010 73,000
Phone: (408) 586 3345 2015 76,000
Email/Website: Dwong@ci.milpitas.ca.gov 2020 78,000
Type: Retail Water (Public) Source: 2000 UWMP
System Information
No. of Employees: 14
No. of Connections per Employee 22
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 10.4
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 19.63
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months NP
Miles of Pipe: 198
No. of Pump Stations: 5
No. of Pressure Zones:
Storage Capacity 16.26 Million Gallons
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $11,432,000 Expenses: $8,900,000 Reserves: $240,000 CIP: $1,195,000
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $ Water Charge: $ Monthly Bill:
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 13,773 NA NA 13,773
Agriculture 320 NA NA 320
Recycled 135 NA NA 135
Other 907 NA NA 907
Total 15,198 NA NA 15,198
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported NP NP NP NP NP
Groundwater NP NP NP NP NP
Surface NP NP NP NP NP
Recycled NA NA NA NA NA
Total NP NP NP NP NP
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential NP NP NP NP NP
Comm/Ind. NP NP NP NP NP
Landscape/Irr NP NP NP NP NP
Other NP NP NP NP NP
Total NP NP NP NP NP
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 222
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
CITY OF MORGAN HILL
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 17555 Peak Avenue Service Area 12 sq miles
Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Population Served: 34,918
Projected Population:
Contact: Jim Ashcraft, Public Works Director 2010 38,300
Phone: (408) 776-7337 2015 43,400
Email/Website: jima@morgan-hill.ca.gov 2020 48,000
www.morgan-hill.ca.gov
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 17
No. of Connections per Employee 641
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 6.8 MGD
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 13.2 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months 40 in 2003
Miles of Pipe: 160
No. of Pump Stations: 10 booster
No. of Pressure Zones: 7
Storage Capacity 9.48 mg
Financial Information (FY 2003-2004) (in thousands)
Revenues: $6,613 Expenses: $6,750 Reserves: $1,224 CIP: $1,711
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $5.20 Water Charge: $30.30 Monthly Bill: $35.50
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 9,662 199 0 9,861
Agriculture/Irrig 483 1 0 484
Recycled 0 0 0 0
Other 756 1 0 757
Total 10,901 201 0 11,102
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater 7,549 8,178 8,690 9,721 10,752
Surface 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0
Total 7,549 8,178 8,690 9,721 10,752
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)**
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential 5,586 6,052 6,431 7,194 7,956
Comm/Ind. 755 818 869 972 1,075
Landscape/Irr 0 0 0 0 0
Other 1,132 1,227 1,304 1,458 1,631
Total 7,549 8,178 8,690 9,721 10,752
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 223
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: PO Box 7540 Service Area 12 sq miles
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 Population Served: 72,006
14,3 Projected Population:
Contact: Alison Turner 2010 75,172
Phone: (650) 903-6329 2015 77,331
Email/Website: Alison.turner@ci.mtnview.ca.us 2020 80,470
www.ci.mtnview.ca.us (ABAG Jurisdictional)
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 34
No. of Connections per Employee 465
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 12.5 MGD
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 21.0 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months 66 CDHS and 146 inquiries
Miles of Pipe: 174.7
No. of Pump Stations: 2
No. of Pressure Zones: 3
Storage Capacity 21 AF
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $15,541 Expenses: $12,163 Reserves: $5,357 CIP: $3,424
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $3.90 Water Charge: $44.55 Monthly Bill: $47.45
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 13,384 0 0 13,384
Agriculture/Irrig 778 0 0 778
Recycled 0 0 0 0
Other 1,642 0 0 1,642
Total 15,804 0 0 15,804
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 13,320.1 14,336 14,336 14,585 14,947
Groundwater 92.6 0 0 0 0
Surface 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0
Total 13,412 13,930 14,336 14,585 14,947
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential 6,961 7,163 7,208 7,262 7,297
Comm/Ind. 2,525 2,959 3,109 3,151 3,231
Landscape/Irr 3,303 3,793 4,096 4,214 4,404
Other 10 14 14 15 15
Total 12,805 13,930 14,336 14,585 14,947
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 224
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 250 Hamilton Avenue Service Area 25.98 sq miles
Palo Alto, CA Population Served: 58,598
14,3 Projected Population:
Contact: Rosemary Ralston 2010
Phone: (650) 329-2522 2015
Email/Website: Rosemary.ralston@cityofpaloalto.org 2020
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 40
No. of Connections per Employee
Average Daily Demand (MGD)
Maximum Day Demand (MGD)
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months
Miles of Pipe:
No. of Pump Stations: 5
No. of Pressure Zones:
Storage Capacity 10.5
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $15,541 Expenses: $12,163 Reserves: $5,357 CIP: $3,424
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $3.90 Water Charge: $44.55 Monthly Bill: $47.45
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 15,797 0 0 15,797
Agriculture/Irrig 781 0 0 781
Recycled 0 0 0 0
Other 2,965 0 0 2,965
Total 19,543 0 0 19,543
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported
Groundwater
Surface
Recycled
Total
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential
Comm/Ind.
Landscape/Irr
Other
Total
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 225
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 3025 Tuers Road Service Area 33.3 sq miles
San Jose, CA 95121 Population Served: 116,208
Projected Population:
Contact: Mansour Nasser, Water Utility Mgr. 2010 130,113
Phone: (408) 277-4218 2015 140,334
Email/Website: mansour.nasser@sanjoseca.gov 2020 154,203
http://www.sjmuniwater.com
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 35
No. of Connections per Employee 738
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 19
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 33.3 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months NP
Miles of Pipe: 325
No. of Pump Stations: 15
No. of Pressure Zones: 8
Storage Capacity 36.5 mg
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $18,229 Expenses: $16,131 Reserves: $12,172 CIP: $3,032
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $6.00 Water Charge: $33.06 Monthly Bill: $39.06
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 23,821 1 NA 23,822
Agriculture NA NA NA NA
Recycled 145 NA NA 1145
Other 1,859 NA NA 1,859
Total 25825 1 NA 25,826
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 20,715 20,912 22,151 23,969 24,908
Groundwater 643 1,836 2,755 3,673 3,673
Surface 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled 2,433 2,104 10,000 12,000 13,000
Total 21,358 24,852 34,906 39,642 41,581
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential 11,105 12,874 14,925 17,301 20,058
Comm/Ind. 3,234 3,749 4,346 5,038 5,841
Landscape/Irr 4,235 4,909 5,691 6,598 7,649
Other 1,049 1,216 1,410 1,635 1,885
Total 19,623 22,748 26,372 30,572 35,433
NA – not applicable
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 226
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 1500 Warburton Avenue Service Area 19.3 sq miles
Santa Clara, CA 95050 Population Served: 106,000
Projected Population:
Contact: Dennis Ma 2010
Phone: (408) 615-2012 2015
Email/Website: dma@ci.santa-clara.ca.us 2020 136,000
http://www.ci.santa-clara.ca.us
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 43.5
No. of Connections per Employee 573
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 23 MGD
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 33 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months Est. <200 (#1 complaint is milky water due to air)
Miles of Pipe: 295
No. of Pump Stations: 3
No. of Pressure Zones: 4
Storage Capacity 27.3 MG
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $16,205 Expenses: $14,757 Reserves: $499.5 CIP: $14,448
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $0.00 Water Charge: $34.86 Monthly Bill: $34.86
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 20,680 NA NA 20,680
Irrigation 3,748 NA NA 3,748
Recycled 159 NA NA 159
Other 325 NA NA 325
Total 24,915 NA NA 24,915
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported
Groundwater
Surface
Recycled
Total
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential
Comm/Ind.
Landscape/Irr
Other
Total
NA – not applicable
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 227
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
CITY OF SUNNYVALE
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: PO Box 3707 Service Area 24 sq miles
Sunnyvale, CA 94088 Population Served: 131,760
Projected Population:
Contact: James G. Craig 2010
Phone: (408) 730-7558 2015
Email/Website: jcraig@ci.sunnyvale.ca.us 2020
http://www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us
Type: Retail Water (Public)
System Information
No. of Employees: 28
No. of Connections per Employee 878
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 22.6 MGD
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 29.0 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months 2
Miles of Pipe: 280
No. of Pump Stations: 5
No. of Pressure Zones: 3
Storage Capacity 27.5 MG
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $197,575 Expenses: $187,575 Reserves: ($14,515_ CIP: $24,516
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $3.68 Water Charge: $39.19 Monthly Bill: $42.87
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 24,587 NA NA 24,587
Irrigation 767 NA NA 767
Recycled 89 NA NA 89
Other 1,904 NA NA 1,904
Total 27,347 NA NA 27,347
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported
Groundwater
Surface
Recycled
Total 25,133 25,458 25,783 26,119
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential
Comm/Ind.
Landscape/Irr
Other
Total
NA – not applicable
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 228
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY
(Los Altos – Suburban District)
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 1720 North First Street Service Area NP
San Jose, CA 95112 Population Served: NP
Projected Population:
Contact: Ron Richardson 2010 NP
Phone: (650) 917-0152 2015 NP
Email/Website: rrichardson@calwater.com 2020 NP
http://www.calwater.com 2025 NP
Type: Retail Water (Private)
System Information
No. of Employees: 802
No. of Connections per Employee 22
Average Daily Demand (MGD) NP
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) NP
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months NP
Miles of Pipe: 293+
No. of Pump Stations: NP
No. of Pressure Zones: 18
Storage Capacity 14.686 mg
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: NP Expenses: NP Reserves: NP CIP: $1,800
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $14.70 Water Charge: $38.64 Monthly Bill: $53.34
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 16,500 NA NA 16,500
Agriculture 0 NA NA 0
Recycled 0 NA NA 0
Other 1,307 NA NA 1,307
Total 17,807 NA NA 17,807
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported NP NP NP NP NP
Groundwater 4,459 NP NP NP NP
Surface NP NP NP NP NP
Recycled NA NA NA NA NA
Total NP NP NP NP NP
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential NP NP NP NP NP
Comm/Ind. NP NP NP NP NP
Landscape/Irr NP NP NP NP NP
Other NP NP NP NP NP
Total NP NP NP NP NP
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 229
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
GREAT OAKS WATER COMPANY
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 15 Great Oaks Blvd., Suite 100 Service Area NP
San Jose, CA 95119 Population Served: 70,963
Projected Population:
Contact: Alan Gardner, Chief Operating 2010 NP
Officer 2015 NP
Phone: (408) 227-9540 2020 NP
Email/Website: agardner@greatoakswater.com
www.greatoakswater.com
Type: Retail Water (Private)
System Information
No. of Employees: 16
No. of Connections per Employee 1,261
Average Daily Demand (MGD) NP
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) NP
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months NP
Miles of Pipe: 185
No. of Pump Stations: NP
No. of Pressure Zones: NP
Storage Capacity 6.23 MG
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: NP Expenses: NP Reserves: NP CIP: NP
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $5.25 Water Charge: $32.10 Monthly Bill: $37.735
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 19,935 19,935
Agriculture 0 0
Recycled 0 0
Other 235 235
Total 20,170 20,170
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 0
Groundwater 12,792
Surface 0
Recycled 0
Total 12,792
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)**
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential
Comm/Ind.
Landscape/Irr
Other
Total 12,792
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 230
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 1221 S. Bascom Ave. Service Area 138 sq miles
San Jose, CA 95128 Population Served: 1,000,000
Projected Population:
Contact: George Belhumeur 2010 1,054,000
Phone: (408) 279-7805 2015 1,081,000
Email/Website: George_belhumeur@sjwater.com 2020 1,108,000
http://www.sjwater.com/
Type: Retail Water (Private)
System Information
No. of Employees: 301
No. of Connections per Employee 721
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 138.0 MGD
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 232.6 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months NP
Miles of Pipe: 2,475
No. of Pump Stations: 217; 428 MGD
No. of Pressure Zones: 65
Storage Capacity 6,920 AF
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $149,700 Expenses: $126,800 Reserves: NA CIP: $28,700
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge $9.50 Water Charge: $37.14 Monthly Bill: $46.64
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 215,029 NA NA 215,029
Agriculture 0 NA NA 0
Recycled 40 NA NA 40
Other 2,046 NA NA 2,046
Total 217,115 NA NA 217,115
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 83,120
Groundwater 65,687
Surface 7,856
Recycled 1,000
Total 157,663
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential 87,615
Comm/Ind. 46,759
Landscape/Irr 1,000
Other 0
Total 135,374
NA – not applicable
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 231
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
STANFORD UNIVERSITY UTILITIES DIVISION
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 327 Bonair Siding Service Area 2.5 sq miles
Stanford Utilities Population Served: 24,700
Stanford, CA 94305-7272 Projected
Contact: Marty Laporte Population:
Phone: (650) 725-7864 2010 26,800
Email/Website: martyl@bonair.standford.edu 2020 27,000
http://facilities.stanford.edu/environment/ 2025
Type: Retail Water (Private) 2030 27,924
System Information
No. of Employees: 3
No. of Connections per Employee NA
Average Daily Demand (MGD) 2.5 MGD
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 4.2 MGD
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months NP
Miles of Pipe: NP
No. of Pump Stations: 4
No. of Pressure Zones: 3
Storage Capacity (potable & non-potable) 451.2 mg
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: NP Expenses: NP Reserves: NP CIP: NP
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Meter Charge N/A Water Charge: $65.08 Monthly Bill: $65.08
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 1,414 NA NA 1,414
Agriculture 2 NA NA 2
Recycled NA NA NA NA
Other NA NA NA NA
Total 1,416 NA NA 1,416
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported
Groundwater
Surface
Recycled under evaluation
Total
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential 1,369
Comm/Ind. 904
Landscape/Irr 1,543
Other 80
Total 3,896 4,628 4,889 5,154 5,428
NA – not applicable; NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 232
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
WEST SAN MARTIN WATER WORKS, INC.
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 1005 Highland Avenue Service Area NP
San Martin, CA 95046 Population Served: NP
Projected Population:
Contact: Bob Ukestad 2010 Increase 2-5%
Phone: (408) 683-2098 2015 annually
Email/Website: ukestad@email.com 2020
2025
Type: Retail Water (Private)
System Information
No. of Employees: 0
No. of Connections per Employee NA
Average Daily Demand (MGD)
Maximum Day Demand (MGD)
No. of filed Complaints in past 12 Months
Miles of Pipe: 16
No. of Pump Stations: 2
No. of Pressure Zones: 3
Storage Capacity 0.55 MG
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: NP Expenses: NP Reserves: NP CIP: NP
Typical Monthly Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf)
Range from $20-
Meter Charge Water Charge: Monthly Bill:
$400
Service Within Outside Outside
Connections Boundary Boundary/Within Sphere Total
Sphere
Domestic 234 NA NA 234
Commercial 40 NA NA 40
Recycled 0 NA NA 0
Other (Govt) 3 NA NA 3
Total 277 NA NA 277
Supply Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater 400 420 441 463 486
Surface 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0
Total
Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr)
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020
Residential
Comm/Ind.
Landscape/Irr
Other
Total 400 420 441 463 486
NA – not applicable, NP – not provided
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 233
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 1155 Market Street Service Area
San Francisco, CA 94103 Population Served: 2,400,000
Projected Population:
Contact: William Laws, Rate Administrator 2010
Phone: (415) 487-5251 2015
Email/Website: wlaws@sfwater.org 2020
www.sfwater.org
Type: City (Public Utilities Commission)
Agency Information
No. of Employees: 593
Sources of Revenue Service Charges (87%)
Fees (2%)
Rent (5%)
Interest Income (3%)
Misc. (3%)
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $170,640 Expenses: $163,856 Reserves: $16,297 CIP: $23,080
Services Provided
(cid:131) Provides treated and pre-treated imported water to 29 wholesale agencies in San Francisco Bay Area
(cid:131) Wholesale Demand: 2000 = 171.3 MGD 2020 = 200.9 MGD
(cid:131) Provides water to retail customers within City and County of San Francisco (not covered in this service
review)
(cid:131) $1.476 billion in regional CIP projects
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 234
Appendix C: Agency Profiles
BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY
Agency Information Service Area Information
Address: 155 Bovet Road, Suite 302 Service Area 460 sq. miles
San Mateo, CA 94402 Population Served: 1,700,000
Projected Population:
Contact: Arthur Jensen, General Manager 2010
Phone: (650) 349-3000 2015
Email/Website: ajensen@bawsca.org 2020
www.bawsca.org
Type: Dependent Special District
Agency Information
No. of Employees: 5
Date of Formation 5/27/2003
Sources of Revenue Member assessments (90%)
Operating reserves (9%)
Misc. (1%)
Financial Information (FY 2002-2003) (in thousands)
Revenues: $1,484 Expenses: $1,291 Reserves: $352 CIP: $9.1
Services Provided
(cid:131) Represents all 28 SFPUC water purchasers in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.
(cid:131) Provides the following:
Water Conservation, Water Contract Negotiation and Administration, Capital Improvement Program
Oversight, Financial Analyses
(cid:131) Provides administrative support for the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority
(cid:131) Has authority to issue bonds
Santa Clara LAFCo: Countywide Water Service Review
June 2005 – Final Report 235
Morgan Hill
San Martin
101
Gilroy
Water Entities In
South Santa Clara County
West San Martin Water Works
San Martin County Water District
Pacheco Pass Water District Boundary
San Martin Planning Area
Cities Urban Service Areas
City Boundaries SANTA CRUZ CO 0
1" = 2
1
.
.
5
2 5
Miles
2.5
County Boundary SAN BENITO CO
San Francisco Bay
MILPITAS
PALO ALTO
237
MOUNTAIN VIEW
SUNNYVALE
LOS ALTOS
LOS ALTOS HILLS
SANTA CLARA 101
CUPERTINO
SAN JOSE
87
0 17,000
1" = 17,000'
CAMPBELL
SARATOGA
Water Entities In 85
North Santa Clara County 17
MONTE
SERENO
Great Oaks Water Company LOS GATOS
San Jose Municipal Water System
San Jose Water Company
Stanford University Boundary
Purissima Hills County Water District Boundary
Purissima Hills County Water District SOI
Aldercroft Heights County Water District Boundary
17
Aldercroft Heights County Water District SOI
City Boundaries
County Boundary
Not Shown: California Water Service Company
Data For Great Oaks Water Company Provided By SCVWD
Boundary Not Verified By Great Oaks Water Company
Cherry Ranch Mutual Water Company &
Candy Ranch Mutual Water Company
L
Morgan Hill
la
g a s A v e n u e Middle Avenue
C
e n te r A v e n u
e
F
o
o
th
ill
A
v
e
n
u
e
101
3,700
1" = 3700'
San
Martin
Ave
San Martin
San Martin Planning Area /
San Martin County Water District
San Martin County Water District Boundary West San Martin Water Works, Inc Out Of Agency Service City Urban Service Areas
San Martin County Water District SOI San Martin Planning Area City Boundaries
San Francisco Bay
MILPITAS
PALO ALTO
237
680
MOUNTAIN VIEW
SUNNYVALE
LOS ALTOS 880
SANTA CLARA
SAN JOSE
280
CUPERTINO
87
CAMPBELL
85
101
SARATOGA
17
MONTE SERENO
LOS GATOS
17
0 5
1" = 5 Miles
MORGAN HILL
Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District
Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District Boundary
Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District SOI
City Boundaries
County Boundary
SAM
MATEO
CO
SANTA
CRUZ
CO