ARCHIVED REPORTS_DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Home Browse Search

Assessment of Socio-Economic Considerations economic impacts are further divided into"residential"and"non-residential"ratepayer categories to reflect the fact that approximately 60 percent of WQCF wastewater treatment The public benefit derived from an increase in WQCF discharge capacity that is necessary to capacity is allocated to residential customers. For the purpose of the present analysis,the accommodate growth in the City and the surrounding area is an important consideration in this residential category represents only City residential customers and the"non-residential"category antidegradation analysis. In accordance with APU 90-004 guidance for a`complete' includes City commercial,industrial,and septage users,as well as wastewater3 received from the antidegradation analysis,the following factors are considered in determining whether the City of Lathrop and Raymus Village. Forty(40)percent of WQCF wastewater treatment lowering of water quality that is anticipated with the WQCF expansion is necessary to capacity is allocated to this"non-residential"group of customers. It is anticipated that the City accommodate economic or social development and is consistent with maximum public benefit: will not need to discharge greater than 9.87 MGD(ADWF)to the San Joaquin River until sometime between the years 2012 to 2017. The proposed sharing of alternative control measure • A consideration of alternative control measures that might reduce,eliminate,or costs among current and future,residential and non-residential ratepayers is provided in Table compensate for the water quality impacts of the proposed capacity increase; 46 as both a percentage and volume(in MGD)of WQCF 27 MGD(ADWF)build-out capacity. • An evaluation of each alternative control measure for costs,impacts on water quality,and In the present analysis,total costs include capital and operations and maintenance costs,and all compliance with applicable laws,regulations,and policies; cost estimates are presented as planning level estimates provided in present worth dollars as of March 2007. Annualized total costs are based on a 20-year period and a 6 percent discount rate • An assessment of the socio-economic impacts of each alternative;and (annualization factor=0.08718). • A balancing of the proposed WQCF expansion and the alternatives based on environmental and socio-economic considerations. Table 46: Alternative Control Measure Cost Sharing among WQCF Ratepayer Groups COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR MAINTAINING EXISTING WATER WQCF Ratepayer Group by User History QUALITY WQCF Ratepayer Group by Current Users Future Users Combined Current and The first component of the antidegradation analysis,the assessment of projected water quality Sewage Type Contribution (36.6%of 27 MGD) (63.4%of 27 MGD) Future Users(MGD) impacts due to the proposed project,identified constituents that,to varying degrees,may impact Residential Users water quality in the San Joaquin River(downstream of the WQCF discharge)and in the Delta (60%WQCF capacity allocation) 22 or 5.92 MGD 38/or 10.28 MGD 16.2 due to an increase in WQCF discharge. Maintaining existing water quality in the San Joaquin Non-Residential Users River and the Delta with an increase in WQCF discharge may be approached through effluent-to- (40%WQCF capacity allocation) 15%or 3.95 MGD 25%or 6.85 MGD 10.8 land disposal or additional wastewater treatment by microfiltration and reverse osmosis Totals(MGD ADWF) 9.87 17.13 27 (MF/RO). These alternatives each possess unique abilities to address water quality constituents of concern and each has distinct implementation benefits,liabilities,and costs. In order to maintain existing water quality and mass loading in the San Joaquin River from the time the Effluent-to-Land Disposal WQCF reaches its current permitted capacity of 9.87 MGD(AWDF)through the proposed build- out capacity of 27 MGD(ADWF),it is estimated that a maximum effluent-to-land disposal The use of recycled water for unrestricted urban landscape irrigation and agricultural irrigation capacity of 18 MGD or a maximum MF/RO capacity of 21 MGD would be required. The represent alternatives for treated wastewater disposal for the City. Effluent from the WQCF is implementation of either alternative would maintain WQCF effluent mass loading to the San currently either land applied to approximately 360 acres of City-owned/leased parcels or Joaquin River at the currently permitted 9.87 MGD(ADWF)level as WQCF discharge capacity discharged to the San Joaquin River. The City has examined a number of effluent-to-land increases to 27 MGD(ADWF). The costs of implementing an alternative control measure would disposal strategies that would have sufficient capacity for disposal of 18 MGD of treated be above and beyond the Phase IV and Phase V costs associated with increasing WQCF wastewater year-round. Because of the relatively high unit cost and other implementation discharge capacity to 27 MGD(ADWF). constraints of urban water reuse,the City has decided to direct land disposal of undisinfected, denitrified,secondary effluent to existing City-owned land surrounding the WQCF and to future Jo a means equitably dividing the costs of maintaining existing water quality in the San City-purchased land at some distance from the WQCF. While the City has examined the costs of Joaquin Riveerr among current and future sewer ratepayers to accommodate the implementation of purchasing land from one to 10 miles away from the WQCF for effluent disposal(Nolte,2004), either of the two proposed alternatives,the City would look to current ratepayers to pay for 36.6 economic considerations and land availability make the purchase of land farther away from the percent and future ratepayers to pay for 63.4 percent of an alternative's implementation costs. This percent allocation between current and future sewer ratepayers represents a partitioned cost sharing of the WQCF's 27 MGD(ADWF)build-out capacity once the facility reaches its current r Wastewater received from the City of Lathrop and Raymus Village is primarily composed of domestic waste; permitted capacity of 9.87 MGD(ADWF),at which time effluent flow in excess of 9.87 MGD however,for the purpose of the current analysis the residential customers generating domestic waste in the City of (ADWF)would need to be accommodated by either effluent-to-land disposal or MF/R0 Lathrop and Raymus Village are grouped in the"non-residential"ratepayer category in order to separate their advanced treatment(9.87=27=0.366 or 36.6%). Additionally,cost estimates and socio- domestic waste contributions from those of City of Manteca residential customers. City of Manteca Antidegradation Analysis 99 June 2007 City of Manteca Antidegradation Analysis 100 June 2007