A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN ...A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER...

A REGULAR MEETING OF THE

SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY AT

1720 W. CAMERON AVENUE, SUITE 100 WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 AT 12:00 P.M.

AGENDA

I. CALL TO ORDER AGUIÑAGA

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS MORENO

Louie Aguiñaga, Chairman (alt) Ed Chavez, Vice-Chairman (alt) Jim Byerrum, Treasurer (alt) Bob Kuhn, Secretary (alt) Mike Whitehead, Board Member (alt) John Leung, Board Member (alt) [vacant], Board Member (alt)

IV. ITEMS TOO LATE TO BE AGENDIZED - Recommended Action: AGUIÑAGA

Approve motion determining need to take action on item(s) which arose subsequent to posting of the Agenda (ROLL CALL VOTE: Adoption of this recommendation requires a two-thirds vote of the Board or, if less than two-thirds of Board members are present, a unanimous vote)

V. PUBLIC COMMENTS (On Agenda/Non-Agenda Items): AGUIÑAGA

Anyone wishing to discuss items within the jurisdiction of the Water Quality Authority may do so now or during the time that the board takes the item up for discussion. Please complete the appropriate request card and submit it to the Secretary, prior to this item. A five-minute time limit on remarks is requested.

TAB 1 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR AGUIÑAGA

(Consent items may all be approved by single motion)

(a) Minutes for 8/22/12 Board Meeting (b) Demands on Administrative Fund [enc] (c) Demands on Project Fund [enc]

VII. COMMITTEE REPORTS AGUIÑAGA (These items may require action) TAB 2 (a) Administrative/Finance Committee Report [enc]

TAB 3 1. Discussion/Action Regarding Draft 404 Report [enc] TAB 4 2. Discussion/Action Regarding Greater Los Angeles County IRWMP Memorandum of Understanding [enc] TAB 5 (b) Engineering Committee Report [enc] TAB 6 1. Discussion/Action Regarding Notice of Exemption for the Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility [enc]

a. Adopt Resolution 12-007, A Resolution Concerning a Notice of Exemption and Approval for Alterations to the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility

TAB 7 2. Discussion/Action Regarding $15K Task Order for Stetson Engineers Related to Discharge Permit Activities [enc] TAB 8 (c) Legislative/Public Information Committee Report [enc] TAB 9 1. Discussion/Action Regarding Resolution for San Gabriel River Discovery

Center [enc]

a. Adopt Resolution 12-008, A Resolution Supporting the Funding, Development and Operation of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center

VIII. OTHER ACTION/INFORMATION ITEMS (These items may require action) None. IX. ENGINEER'S REPORT SCHOELLERMAN

(a) Project Updates:

1. Baldwin Park Operable Unit Status · Arrow/Lante Well (Subarea 1) Operational · Monrovia Wells Operational · SGVWC B6 Plant Operational · SGVWC B5 Plant Operational · CDWC Well No. 14 Operational · La Puente Valley County Water District Operational

2. El Monte Operable Unit · Eastern Shallow Zone Under Construction · Eastern Deep Zone Under Construction · GSWC Encinita Plant Operational · Western Shallow Zone Operational

3. South El Monte Operable Unit

· Whitmore St. Ground Water Remediation Off-Line Treatment Facility

· City of M.P. Well No. 5 VOC Treatment Operational Facility

· City of M.P. Well No. 12 Perchlorate Treatment Operational Facility

· City of M.P. Well No. 15 Operational · City of M.P. Well Nos. 1, 3, 10 VOC Treatment Operational

Facility · GSWC Wells SG-1 & SG-2 Operational · SGVWC Plant No. 8 Operational

4. Puente Valley Operable Unit · Shallow Zone Feasibility Study · Deep Zone Feasibility Study

5. Area 3 Operable Unit · City of Alhambra Phase 1 Operational

· City of Alhambra Phase 2 Operational

X. ATTORNEY'S REPORT KIDMAN XI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT MANNING XII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AGUIÑAGA TAB 10 XIII. INFORMATION ITEMS [enc] AGUIÑAGA

(a) WQA Calendar (b) October Meeting Schedule Notice (c) Letter from SGV Regional Chamber of Commerce

XIV. FUTURE BOARD/COMMITTEE MEETINGS AGUIÑAGA

(a) The next Administrative/Finance Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 12:00 P.M. at WQA

(b) The next Engineering Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. at WQA

(c) The next Legislative/Public Information Committee will be held on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:00 P.M. at WQA

(d) The next WQA Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 at 12:00 P.M.

XV. BOARD MEMBERS' COMMENTS/REPORTS AGUIÑAGA

XVI. CLOSED SESSION AGUIÑAGA (a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Existing Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code §54956.9:

- CV 02-4565 ABC (RCX) – [South El Monte] XVII. ADJOURNMENT AGUIÑAGA Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items and are distributed to a majority of the Board less than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection in the lobby of the Authority’s business office located at 1720 W. Cameron Ave., Suite 100, West Covina, CA 91790, during regular business hours. When practical, these public records will also be made available on the Authority’s internet web site, accessible at www.wqa.com .

DRAFT

A REGULAR MEETING OF THE

SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY AUGUST 22, 2012 at 12:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairman called the regular meeting of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority to order and reviewed the actions anticipated on the agenda for the meeting.

ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS

Louie Aguiñaga, Ed Chavez, Jim Byerrum, Bob Kuhn,, and John Leung

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT

Mike Whitehead

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Ken Manning, Executive Director, Randy Schoellerman, Assistant Executive Director/Senior Engineer; Stephanie Moreno, Admin/IS Assistant; Dan Colby, Project Resource Manager; Michelle Sanchez, Admin/Accounting Assistant; Art Kidman, Legal Counsel; Eddy Beltran, Legal Counsel

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT

Stephen Millard, Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD; Bill Snyder, NDE; Dan Horan, Three Valleys MWD; Tom Schmidt, Hermetic Seal; Kevin Hostert, Suburban Water Systems; Lenet Pacheco, Valley County Water District

ITEMS TOO LATE TO BE AGENDIZED

None

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Schmidt commented that the El Monte Operable Unit West Side Shallow treatment facility was completed and operating. He also thanked the WQA for all of their assistance with this project.

PUBLIC HEARING

“To Receive Comments on the Proposed 2012/2013 Fiscal Year $7.25/Acre-Foot Assessment on Those Holding Prescriptive Water Pumping Rights in the San Gabriel Basin”

The Chairman opened the public hearing to receive comments. There being none, the public hearing was closed.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Mr. Kuhn moved to approve the consent calendar as presented. Mr. Chavez seconded the motion and it was approved with the following abstention: Mr. Byerrum abstained from project demand No. 3545.

COMMITTEE REPORTS Administrative/Finance Committee Report

Mr. Manning reported that the minutes for the meeting held on August 15, 2012 were enclosed for review.

Discussion/Action Regarding Biennial Review of Conflict of Interest Code

Mr. Manning reported that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body of the WQA’s Conflict of Interest Code. State law directs all agencies that have adopted a Conflict of Interest Code to review their code and make any changes necessitated by changed circumstances. He indicated that the WQA has not made any changes to the conflict of interest code since 2003. He reported after reviewing the code again, it has been determined that one of the positions listed should be changed to reflect a more specific position that fall under disclosure category 5. He reported that the committee has recommended changing the position of “consultant” to “Public Affairs Consultant”. After brief discussion, Mr. Byerrum moved to approve the change to the Conflict of Interest Code. Mr. Leung seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Discussion/Action Regarding SAS 114 Planning Letter for the Audit of the Fiscal Year 2011/2012

Mr. manning reported that the Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) 114 requires certain communication between auditors and those charged with oversight of the organization being audited. Some audit firms provide the planning communication in the form of a SAS 114 Planning letter. Other audit firms communicate the planning information verbally to those in governance at committee meetings, formal board meetings or council meetings, while other audit firms communicate the information either at the entrance conference or in some other informal manner. He noted that The policy of the WQA’s auditors, Mayer Hoffman McCann (MHM), is to communicate the information in the form of a SAS 114 Planning Letter. He also noted that there was no action needed on this item because it was for informational purposes and for discussion amongst the Board.

Discussion/Action Regarding Increase in Annual Liability Insurance Premium and Administrative Budget Line Item Transfer Request

Mr. Manning reported that there was an unexpected increase in the ACWA/JPIA liability insurance annual premium and that staff was requesting a $10,000 budget line item transfer from contingency to Property & Liability Insurance to accommodate it. He noted that the increase in the annual premium was due to the claim WQA submitted for a settlement that was reached in FY08/09. ACWA JPIA indicated that the effect of the claim would drop off the policy next year. However, staff planned to budget for it next year anyway. Mr. Chavez asked about the settlement that Mr. Manning referred to. Mr. Manning clarified that the ACWA/JPIA claim was in regards to the Gabriel Monares settlement.

Mr. Chavez asked if the claim was completely finished. Mr. Manning reported that the claim had been completed. Mr. Kuhn commented that the experience modification may stay on as long as five years and that staff should consider that when going through the next budget process. After general discussion, Mr. Byerrum moved to approve the budget line item transfer request. Mr. Kuhn seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Engineering Committee Report


Discussion/Action Regarding Site Access Agreements for the Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility (WSGRF)

Mr. Schoellerman described how the WSGRF project occupies space on two adjacent properties with separate owners which require two separate site access agreements. He reported that the Towne Investment, LLC access agreement is structured as an amendment to the original access agreement dated September 19, 2006. He reported that the other access agreement is a new agreement with Carrie Amber Company who is the current owner of the former J.A. Bozung property. He stated that both agreements allow additional flexibility as to the operation of the WSGRF project. Additionally, he noted that treatment plant portion of the project is on the Carrie Amber Company property and that the agreement also included a license fee up to $500/month contingent upon WQA receiving additional Cleanup and Abatement Account grant funding. He also noted that the draft license agreements for each of the properties would extend the access to the sites for another five years. Mr. Manning noted that staff was asking for approval of the agreements now with some modest negotiating points remaining. He indicated that any material changes would be brought back to the Board. After general discussion, Mr. Kuhn moved to approve the Treatment System License Agreements with both Towne Investment LLP and Carrie Amber Company subject to final legal counsel review. Mr. Aguiñaga seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Legislative/Public Information Committee Report


Discussion/Action Regarding ACWA’s Best in Blue Award: Achieving Communications Excellence

Mr. Manning reported that this was a new award that ACWA has introduced to that recognizes outstanding achievements by public water agencies in communicating with interested parties. He noted that after reviewing the criteria for this award he felt that the WQA may not have a project that would be

competitive this first year and that the agency should consider the possibility of submitting an application for this award in the future. After brief discussion, the Board concurred with staff’s recommendation.

OTHER ACTION/INFORMATION ITEMS

RESOLUTION NO. 12-006

Mr. Manning reported that Resolution 12-006 was a resolution that would adopt the annual prescriptive pumping right assessment in the amount of $7.25 per acre foot. After brief discussion, Mr. Byerrum moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-006, a Resolution of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority Imposing an Annual Prescriptive Pumping Right Assessment to Pay For the Authority Budget For Fiscal Year 2012/2013. Mr. Kuhn seconded the motion and it was adopted by the following vote: AYES: AGUIÑAGA, CHAVEZ, BYERRUM, KUHN, LEUNG NO: NONE ABSENT: WHITEHEAD

ENGINEER’S REPORT

Mr. Schoellerman reported that the WSGRF is currently off-line. He stated that an early July routine sampling event indicated that the WSGRF Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) were slightly above the 750 ppm permitted discharge limitation. He reported that a confirmation sample was taken and had similar concentrations resulting in the immediate shut down of the WSGRF and notification to the Los Angeles Regional Control Board. He indicated that the TDS is typically in the 400-500 ppm range although the system had spiked higher over the years on a few occasions. He stated that staff is investigating solutions to the TDS issue which may include additional treatment or a new extraction well.

ATTORNEY’S COMMENTS

Mr. Kidman asked Mr. Beltran to report on an article he saw pertaining to CEQA. Mr. Beltran reported Governor Brown commented that changing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was the Lord’s work. He indicated that any CEQA amendments would have to be submitted by Friday. Some provisions might say that as long as something complies with a city plan or some kind of plan that it be would be sufficient. He said that he would update the Board if anything happens.

Mr. Kidman also reported that a bill, AB 685, sponsored by Assemblyman Eng was causing some issues in Sacramento. He indicated that ACWA has sent out an advisory alert asking it members to not support this bill. He noted that the bill would declare that every human being has a right to clean water which would provide many difficulties to water providers. He also noted that the bill should go to the full senate soon.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mr. Manning reported that he thought that AB 685 was a spot bill and didn’t think it would go anywhere. He also reported that it appears that AB 467, also sponsored by Assemblyman Eng, will be signed by the Governor. He reported that USEPA and DTSC have been discussing changing operators for the Whittier Narrows project and it appeared that the San Gabriel Valley Water Company would be the best operator to do that. He commented that he had a wonderful time on his trip to South Africa and it was good to be back. He noted that the Water Forum was on August 28th and urged everyone to get there early.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

None.

FUTURE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS

The next Administrative/Finance Committee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 12:00 P.M. The next Engineering Committee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. The next Legislative/Public Information Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 12, 2012 at 12:00 P.M. The next WQA Board meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 12:00 P.M.

BOARD MEMBERS’ COMMENTS/ REPORTS

Mr. Kuhn requested that the Chairman put together an ADHOC committee that would work with the The Gualco Group to discuss the WQA extension. He recommended that the ADHOC committee should consist of: 1- Producer Member; 1- City Member; and 1- Water District Member Mr. Aguiñaga appointed Board Members Whitehead, Kuhn, and himself to work with Mr. Manning and The Gualco Group to discuss the extension of the WQA.

CLOSED SESSION A closed session was not held.

The Chairman asked if there were any other items of business to come before the Board. There being none, the Board meeting was adjourned to September 19, 2012 at 12:00 P.M.

_____________________________ ____________________________ Louie Aguiñaga, Chairman Bob Kuhn, Secretary

MINUTES OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 AT 12:00 P.M.

AT WQA HEADQUARTERS

Members Present: Louie Aguiñaga, Mike Whitehead and Jim Byerrum Members Absent: None Liaison Member: Dave Michalko Staff Present: Randy Schoellerman

Mary Saenz Stephanie Moreno Dan Colby Michelle Sanchez

Visitors: Lenet Pacheco, Valley County Water District Margarita Vargas, Valley County Water District Bryan Urias, Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD Discussion Regarding Draft 404 Report Mr. Schoellerman reported that the WQA is required to provide a status report semi-annually on its activities undertaken pursuant to the §406 plan. He noted that much of the information provided in this status report is already available in the §406 plan. Finally, he indicated that the report is due to the State Water Resources Control Board and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board by September 30, 2012 for WQA’s activities through June 30, 2012. After a general discussion and comments on the report, the committee recommended that the draft report go to the full Board for approval. Discussion Regarding Greater Los Angeles County IRWMP Memorandum of Understanding Mr. Schoellerman gave a presentation about the Greater Los Angeles County Region Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) Leadership Committee. The committee operates under a memorandum of understanding that expires and the end of 2012. Staff is recommending that WQA continue participating in the IRWMP process and approve the MOU for an additional 4 years. He noted that WQA’s continued participation would not require any further financial obligations at this time. After brief discussion, the committee recommended that the IRWMP Memorandum of Understanding go to the full Board for approval.

Discussion Regarding Extension of Executive Director’s Contract Mr. Aguiñaga reported that this item would come back for discussion at a later date. Executive Director’s Report None.

AGENDA SUBMITTAL

To: WQA Board Members

From: Kenneth R. Manning, Executive Director

Date: September 26, 2012

Subject: Draft 404 Status Report for September 2012

Background and Discussion In 2007, legislation created Chapter 404, Statutes of 2007 (AB1010, Hernandez) added Section 711 to the WQA statutes. Under this section, the WQA is required to provide a status report semi-annually on its activities undertaken pursuant to the §406 plan. As such, much of the information provided in this status report is already available in the §406 plan. This report to the State Water Resources Control Board and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board is due September 30, 2011 and is prepared to comply with Section 711 for WQA activities through June 30, 2011. Accordingly, attached is a copy of the Draft 404 Status Report for September 2012. Recommendation / Proposed Action The Administrative/Finance Committee recommends approval of the Draft 404 Status Report for September 2012. Attachments Draft 404 Status Report for September 2012

Semi-Annual Status Report

Prepared Pursuant to Ch. 404/Statutes of 2007

September 26, 2012

Board of Directors

Louie Aguiñaga, Chairman Ed Chavez, Vice Chairman Jim Byerrum, Treasurer

Bob Kuhn, Secretary Michael L. Whitehead, Board Member

John Leung, Board Member

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority DRAFT CH. 404 Status Report – September 26, 2012

Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TERMS AND ACRONYMS ABOUT WQA……. ........................................................................................................................................ 5 PURPOSE OF CH. 404 STATUS REPORT ...................................................................................................... 5 OVERVIEW OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IN THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN ........................................... 5 GOALS FOR BASIN GROUNDWATER .............................................................................................................. 6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES .................................................................................................... 10 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 11 FUNDING FROM POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AND OTHER SOURCES ........................................ 13 STATUS OF NON-OPERABLE UNIT SPECIFIC PLANS. ................................................................................. 20 OPERABLE UNIT SPECIFIC PLANS .............................................................................................................. 21 PROJECTED ACTIVITIES OF THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD ........................................................................ 21 PRIORITIES FOR PROJECT FUNDING ........................................................................................................... 23 CONTRACTOR SELECTION .......................................................................................................................... 24 CRITERIA USED TO QUANTITATIVELY EVALUATE PROJECTS FOR EFFECTIVENESS ..................................... 25 APPENDIX A – OPERABLE UNIT PLANS

TABLE 1 – SCHEDULE OF COSTS AND FUNDING FROM POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AND

OTHER SOURCES

TABLE 2 – PROJECT SCORING

TABLE 3 – PROJECT RANKING

FIGURE 1 – SAN GABRIEL BASIN SUPERFUND SITE

FIGURE 2 – PRESCRIBED REMEDY (BALDWIN PARK OPERABLE UNIT)

FIGURE 3 – PRESCRIBED REMEDY (SOUTH EL MONTE OPERABLE UNIT)

FIGURE 4 – PRESCRIBED REMEDY (EL MONTE OPERABLE UNIT)

FIGURE 5 – PRESCRIBED REMEDY (WHITTIER NARROWS OPERABLE UNIT)

FIGURE 6 – PRESCRIBED REMEDY (PUENTE VALLEY OPERABLE UNIT)

FIGURE 7 – EARLY INVESTIGATION (AREA 3)

FIGURE 8 – SUPERFUND VS. NON-SUPERFUND CONTAMINATION

FIGURE 9 – THE NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATING IN THE BASIN

FIGURE 10 – THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WATER TREATED AND CONTAMINANT REMOVED IN THE BASIN


Page 3

TERMS AND ACRONYMS

§406 San Gabriel Basin Groundwater Quality Management and Remediation Plan

ACT The California Safe Drinking Water Act (Health & Safety Code §§ 116275 et seq.)

ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ARMWC Adams Ranch Mutual Water Company Basin Main San Gabriel Basin Basin Plan LARWQCB Los Angeles Basin Plan BATT Best Available Treatment Technology BPOU Baldwin Park Operable Unit CBMWD Central Basin Municipal Water District CD Consent Decree CDWC California Domestic Water Company CEM City of El Monte CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 CMP City of Monterey Park DPH California Department of Public Health (formerly Dept. of Health

Services) DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EC Emergent Chemicals EMOU El Monte Operable Unit ESD Explanation of Significant Differences ESPSD FFPA

East Side Performing Settling Defendant Federal Funding Program Administration

General Permit LARWQCB Issued General NPDES Permit No. CAG914001 GSWC Golden State Water Company IROD Interim Record of Decision IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board LPVCWD La Puente Valley County Water District MCL MSBWM

Maximum Contaminant Level Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster

NCP National Contingency Plan NDMA NL

N-Nitrosodimethylamine Notification Level

Northrop Northrop Grumman Space and Mission System Corporation OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OU Operable Unit Policy 97-005 California Department of Health Services Policy Memo 97-005 PRPs Potentially Responsible Parties PVOU Puente Valley Operable Unit PVOUSC Puente Valley Operable Unit Steering Committee QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement Restoration Fund San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund RI/FS Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision SA1 Subarea 1 SEMOU South El Monte Operable Unit


Page 4

SGVWC San Gabriel Valley Water Company SEMOU Barrier South El Monte Shallow Extraction Barrier SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board SWS Suburban Water Systems TCP 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Title XVI San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation USEPA The United States Environmental Protection Agency USGVMWD Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District UTC United Technologies Corporation UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VCWD Valley County Water District VOC Volatile Organic Compound Watermaster Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster WQA San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority WQA Act San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority’s Enabling Act WSGRF Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility WSPSD West Side Performing Settling Defendant


Page 5

About WQA The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (“WQA”) was formed by a special act of the California Legislature in 1992 (Senate Bill 1679, Russell). The statute gives WQA authority, inter alia, to plan for and to coordinate among several agencies with authority affecting cleanup of the San Gabriel Basin (“Basin”). §406 of the statute requires WQA to develop and adopt a basinwide groundwater quality management and remediation plan (referred to as the §406 Plan). The current §406 Plan, as referenced in this report, was adopted on March 21, 2012.

Purpose of Ch. 404 Status Report In 2007, legislation created Chapter 404, Statutes of 2007 (AB1010, Hernandez) added Section 711 to the WQA statutes. Under this new section, the WQA is required to provide a status report semi-annually on its activities undertaken pursuant to the §406 plan. As such, much of the information provided in this status report is already available in the §406 plan. This report to the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“LARWQCB”) is due September 30, 2012 and is prepared to comply with Section 711 for WQA activities through June 30, 2012.

Overview of Groundwater Contamination in the San Gabriel Basin

The groundwater Basin has the dubious distinction of being one of the most contaminated in the nation. The Basin’s groundwater is contaminated from the ground disposal—dating back to World War II— of synthetic organic compounds used primarily as solvents in industrial and commercial activities. The seriousness of the groundwater contamination problem became evident when high concentrations of volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) were discovered in Azusa in 1979 near a major industrial complex. Over the next four years, further investigation revealed widespread VOC contamination significantly impacting the Basin. This discovery led United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) to place four portions of the Basin on the National Priorities List under authority of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), also known as the Superfund program. Unfortunately in 1997, newly detected contaminants, perchlorate and N-Nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”) liquid/solid rocket fuel, complicated and


Page 6

delayed progress of cleanup activities. Most notably affected was the largest geographical area of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site known as the Baldwin Park Operable Unit (“BPOU”). This led USEPA, state and local agencies to conduct further investigation of the sources and treatment technologies available for remediating groundwater for potable use. In prior years, several VOC treatment/supply projects were expanded at significant costs to treat perchlorate and other emerging compounds. More recently, many of these multiple treatment train projects were further burdened with increased levels of VOCs. As a result, additional VOC treatment, also known as a secondary barrier, was needed to meet California Department of Public Health (“DPH”) permitting requirements under their Technical Memorandum 97-005. While the additional treatment is necessary, each step has incrementally increased the costs of capital construction and treatment and remediation resulting in an overall project cost 4 to 5 times the original VOC treatment/supply project. Of all of the operable units (“OUs”) in the basin, South El Monte Operable Unit (“SEMOU”) has been affected the most by the need for additional treatment. Recently, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) released a draft revised public health goal for perchlorate of 1 ppb. If adopted, the DPH may significantly lower the current perchlorate MCL of 6 pbb which could require some water purveyors to add additional treatment to their systems. Additionally, the USEPA has announced that they will establish a federal MCL within the next two years. USEPA will most likely implement an MCL close to the 1 ppb that was suggested by their draft risk assessment released in 2002. WQA will continue to coordinate activities while reviewing the potential impact of this regulatory standard on current and planned treatment projects throughout the Basin.

Goals for Basin Groundwater

The long-term goal of creating a sustainable and reliable source of water supply in the Basin cannot be met unless the Basin’s giant underground aquifers can be fully utilized. The contamination of many of these aquifers stymies opportunities for local drinking water and for recharge and storage. WQA’s goals were developed as a result of discussions with federal, state and local agencies, various stakeholders, and comments heard at public workshops and hearings. Each year, the goals are re-evaluated as part of the §406 Plan update and are described in the following paragraphs. Accelerate Removal of Contaminant Mass in the Basin - Cleanup actions, implemented earlier than CERCLA provides, are needed to address the immediate threats to the local water supplies. This is accomplished by


Page 7

engaging the regulatory processes of other agencies of the State, and, wherever possible, “fast tracking” the activities, to reach the desired outcome sooner than would occur under the applicable regulatory process. Previously, the WQA focused its accelerated removal activities on projects that could be implemented immediately to remove contaminant mass. In more recent years, the focus has changed due to the ever-growing list of threatened and impaired water supply wells. Faced with this widespread impact, water purveyors, individually and jointly with the WQA and/or other agencies, have undertaken the early implementation of several treatment facilities, thereby initiating clean up well ahead of the mandate from regulatory agencies. With contamination rapidly migrating towards critical water supplies, the WQA now primarily focuses on projects to accelerate and advance cleanup activities while providing a clean water supply or protecting a nearby water source. More of these types of early actions are necessary to either:

(1) remove contaminant mass to immediately prevent further degradation of downgradient aquifers,

(2) contain the spread of contamination to protect critical water supplies,

(3) restore critical water supplies, or (4) combine the aforementioned.

Although early actions are implemented before a regulatory mandate, there is always extensive coordination with USEPA and the LARWQCB to link the early action to the eventual mandate. By working closely with USEPA, the WQA and other local stakeholders can affect USEPA’s decision-making and identify certain high priority cleanup projects that are consistent with USEPA’s objectives. Although USEPA cannot formally endorse and mandate cleanup until a rigorous process is completed, WQA can facilitate and assist in the implementation of the required action well before the mandate. Waiting on mandated actions has already had severe impacts in many parts of the Basin. Prevent Migration of Contamination into Critical Groundwater Supplies - In many parts of the Basin, the contamination continues to spread towards, and threaten groundwater supply wells. Given that so many supply wells have already been shut down, the current situation presents a significant and ongoing threat to the Basin’s water supply. Therefore, priority is given to implementing cleanup projects that will prevent the loss of water supplies.


Page 8

In order to meet this goal, remediation measures must be implemented quickly to prevent contaminants from entering clean drinking water supplies. Further, these actions must also prevent contaminants from entering drinking water supplies with existing treatment not built or suited to treat the threatening contaminant(s). The goal to contain the contamination is supported with actions that specifically address threats to groundwater pumping centers. Loss of major production centers will continue to impair the water supply unless these types of threats are immediately addressed in a cleanup plan. The Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (“MSGBW”) has existing rules and regulations which govern the location and production of water wells for water quality purposes. The WQA works with the MSGBW and its existing rules and regulations to help contain and control the migration of contaminants within the Basin. Integrate Cleanup with Water Supply - With so much of the local water supply impaired, it is essential that water treated from the cleanup projects be put to its highest and best use. Putting the treated water back into the supply system enhances the overall water supply situation in the Basin and helps many water purveyors mitigate the threat to their water supply. The desired objectives can be achieved by maximizing the use of existing facilities that have either been shut down or have been impaired. When new facilities are needed, these should be integrated into the supply of the appropriate water purveyor. If cleanup facilities are built without the consideration of the local supply, then many water purveyors will be forced to build redundant treatment facilities on impaired wells or import increasingly scarce surface supplies from other areas. Currently, water purveyors only use surface water sources when they are readily available or when groundwater sources become impaired or unavailable; otherwise the predominant source of supply is from the local groundwater. Although cleanup projects that put treated water to beneficial use will provide localized benefits, there are, of course, broad benefits that impact the regional water supply situation in California. Decreasing supplies from the Colorado River and the State Water Project, as a result of recent court decisions, make it critical to protect and develop groundwater resources so that both groundwater and surface waters of the State can be managed more effectively. Critical to this statewide need is the full utilization and restoration of the Basin groundwater. Minimize Economic Impact to the Public - The issue of who pays for the cleanup is often the biggest obstacle in initiating the necessary cleanup programs. Although Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRPs”) may be held


Page 9

completely liable for the costs of a response action under the CERCLA mandate, actions normally do not occur until a lengthy process is completed. Equally detrimental is the fact that there is no assurance that water purveyors will be able to fully recover and collect all costs associated with protecting and fulfilling immediate water supply concerns through CERCLA cost recovery actions. Therefore, many water purveyors may still need to fund, at least partially, the construction of treatment facilities or the acquisition of alternative water supplies even after some or all of the solvent PRPs have fulfilled their obligations resulting from a CERCLA cost recovery action. Adding to the economic complexity of the situation is the fact that USEPA conducts its own detailed financial evaluation of PRPs and may settle for a reduced amount. And even then, many businesses cannot fully absorb the financial liability without hurting their businesses. In the meantime, the contamination continues to spread, impacting more water supply sources and, by extension, the basic reliability of plentiful water to support the economic basis and vitality of the Basin. The WQA has pursued and continues to aggressively pursue sources of funding from responsible parties and the federal/state government. Despite these efforts, organizations like WQA and some of the local water purveyors have had to pool their own resources to immediately initiate many of the required response actions. This has required a financial commitment on behalf of the local public (at least initially). Early actions financed outside of the CERCLA process have been necessary to assure that many of the critical projects are implemented quickly. In addition, cleanup projects such as those prescribed by WQA are designed from a local perspective to address groundwater cleanup in conjunction with the water supply. However, costs borne by the public for this effort would have to be absorbed or recovered through litigation. To accommodate potentially conflicting goals between accelerating cleanup and minimizing impact to water rate payers, WQA has identified high priority response actions that can be implemented ahead of USEPA’s mandate using available financial resources, including federal reimbursement funding, and in some cases, financial participation from PRPs. If a required project lacks sufficient funding, a commitment by the affected water purveyors and/or WQA through its assessment, along with other potential local sources, will be required. Where WQA is required to use its own assessment to quickly assist in the development of a project, WQA always considers cost recovery actions to minimize costs borne by the public. To that end, WQA has already filed two costs recovery actions and may consider other cost recovery actions against those responsible entities that chose not to participate in the sponsored early remedial actions.


Page 10

Coordination with Other Agencies

The WQA was created to fulfill a need to coordinate response actions to the contamination in the Basin. The WQA continues to call for the involved federal, state, and local agencies to unite with all stakeholders to work more effectively and efficiently. Stakeholders include but are not limited to:

Federal - the USEPA, the United States Bureau of Reclamation

(“USBR”), State - the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), the

SWRCB, the LARWQCB, the DPH, Local - the WQA and each of its member water districts, the

MSGBW, cities affected by the Basin groundwater contamination, San Gabriel Valley Water Association (“SGVWA”), water purveyors in the Basin, and PRPs.

The WQA engages the existing rules, regulations and standards of these agencies, to coordinate and promote the reasonable and beneficial use of water produced and treated under mandate from the USEPA. WQA recognizes that a number of voluntary or consensual arrangements ultimately will be required to implement the objective to integrate water cleanup operations and water supply operations in the Basin. In addition to engaging existing regulatory authority held by other agencies, WQA encourages the needed voluntary or consensual arrangements through the exercise of authority under the WQA Act, including its authority to seek recovery of WQA’s costs to respond to and cleanup groundwater contamination in the Basin. Recent examples of agency coordination include:

Overseeing the operation of remedy projects in the SEMOU through a cooperative agreement with USEPA

Participation at the request of the Special Master in settlement meetings for the SEMOU

Participation in BPOU and SEMOU Principals’ meetings Facilitating permits with the LARWQCB and the Los Angeles County

Flood Control District (“LACFCD”) to resolve discharge issues associated with cleanup activities that effect multiple operable units

Participation in quarterly technical meetings sponsored by the USEPA to discuss remedial activities in the SEMOU, the El Monte Operable Unit (“EMOU”) and the Puente Valley Operable Unit (“PVOU”)

Participation in public outreach meetings in the EMOU.


Page 11

WQA’s coordination efforts are broad-based, recognizing that migrating groundwater contamination threatens the drinking water supplies in adjacent communities. Recent examples include:

• The WQA’s Assistant Executive Director/Senior Engineer is a member of the Leadership Committee of the Greater L.A. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (“IRWMP”). This program had helped to facilitate a new regional approach to watershed management by establishing collaborative efforts across the watersheds and functions that may have not been done otherwise

• Participating in meetings with the Association of California Water Agencies,

• Participating in meetings with the San Gabriel Valley Water Association

Recognizing that actions elsewhere in the state or country can positively or negatively affect its cleanup efforts, during 2007 the WQA joined in an amicus brief regarding United Sates vs. Atlantic Research Corporation. This case could have jeopardized funding under the CERCLA. The WQA undertook a leadership role with the amicus brief to try and preserve contribution claims against responsible parties for early projects. Fortunately, this case was decided in favor of the position supported by the amicus brief.

Public Outreach and Information

The WQA has succeeded over a number of years in building public support for cleaning up contaminated groundwater in the Basin. The public information program seeks to foster understanding of the WQA’s mission, projects and accomplishments and plans, and to encourage public participation in the cleanup process. The WQA’s ongoing efforts are undertaken to ensure that all stakeholders, including the general public, understand projects that involve the WQA and have ample opportunity to contribute ideas and opinions. Because the Basin is a Superfund site, the processes used must always meet requirements under the National Contingency Plan (“NCP”), including its public participation component. In addition, whenever needed or requested, WQA works closely with water purveyors to help them meet the extensive public outreach requirements set forth in the DPH Technical Memorandum 97-005. However, absent regulatory requirements, the WQA continues to be committed to informing the public of all of its activities.


Page 12

The program employs a variety of methods to reach everyone from specialized audiences, such as the local water community and legislators in Sacramento and Washington, to the general public in the Basin and beyond. Website - The WQA web site is regularly updated and provides instant access to news releases, publications, agendas, minutes of meetings, and reports on projects. In addition to WQA-specific issues, the web site links to local, state and federal water agencies and organizations. It also gives access to the names of officials who can be contacted for further information. A new and improved website was launched in June, 2007. In March of 2008, WQA launched an e-mail notification page which lets subscribers know when new information is posted to the website, including Board and committee agendas. In June of 2011, WQA redesigned its webpage once again and expanded its role in social media outlets by creating an active Facebook page with additional updates through Twitter and YouTube. Communication with Government Officials - The WQA keeps the local offices of federal and state legislators informed of any developments and the progress of cleanup issues in the Basin through office visits, tours of treatment facilities and invitations to participate in the WQA legislative committee. The WQA hosts the Legislative Water Forum Luncheon, inviting elected officials to update the Basin water community on state legislation. Speakers in the series to date have included United States Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Congressman David Dreier, former Congresswoman Hilda Solis (now U.S. Secretary of Labor), Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer (now State Treasurer), former California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and former California Board of Equalization Member Judy Chu (now Congresswoman). In 2006, the WQA developed a DVD presentation that features Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman David Dreier. The DVD has been used in Sacramento and Washington, D.C to educate legislators, bureaucrats and other stakeholders about the strategic importance of the Basin. Senator Feinstein and Congressman Dreier implore the state and the state legislators to become full participants in the cleanup of the Basin. The WQA continues to conduct briefings and tours with local, state and federal officeholders. Past briefings and/or tours were conducted for Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey, former Public Utilities Commissioner Diane Grunick, SWRCB member Francis Spivey-Weber, State Senator Ed Hernandez, Assemblymembers Mike Eng and Curt Hagman, and several legislative staff, as well as meetings with several members of the


Page 13

Administration, including representatives of the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Governor’s Office. Media communications - The public information program uses a variety of written publications to carry its message. These may include annual reports, brochures, bulletins for specific projects and periodic news inserts in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Pasadena Star News and the Whittier Daily News, which are all published by the Los Angeles News Group. The inserts are distributed throughout the Basin, through home and business delivery and general sales of the Los Angeles News Group. The WQA works with major news outlets, such as the Los Angeles News Group, Los Angeles Times, and foreign language publications, such as La Opinion and the Chinese Daily News. It also provides information to other local newspapers, city and chambers of commerce newsletters and publications directed at water and environmental interests, the business press and the electronic media. It distributes press releases, contacts and meets with reporters and editors to inform them of activities, responds to press inquiries and takes other steps to encourage media interest. In 2007, KCET’s Life & Times program produced a segment on the Basin. The segment focused on the status of the cleanup, the impact of the contamination on the City of Monterey Park’s (“CMP’s”) water supply, the potential impact on ratepayers, and the need for more state involvement. A DVD of the segment is also used to educate local stakeholders on the cleanup of the Basin. WQA Board - The WQA Board, through a variety of means, including public meetings and workshops, also interacts with the public to provide information and to solicit input. In addition to regular Board meetings, Board members participate in several committees, including the Administrative/Finance Committee, the Engineering Committee and the Legislative/Public Information Committee. As an example of the Board’s outreach activities, in May 2011, the WQA Board held a one day conference to gather input on WQA’s performance. In addition to staff presentations, several stakeholders gave presentations to illustrate their perspectives on how to improve WQA. This provided valuable input for the Board and staff to consider.

Funding From Potentially Responsible Parties and Other Sources The WQA is committed to accelerating cleanup, integrating cleanup with water supply, preventing migration, and minimizing the financial impact to


Page 14

the public through its annual assessment. In order to meet these goals, adequate funds, primarily from PRPs, state and/or federal programs, are necessary for implementation. While the WQA recognizes that PRPs must fulfill their CERCLA liabilities, it is often a very slow process - a process that jeopardizes the groundwater and increases the cost of implementing projects. Although USEPA has urged PRPs to consider affected water supplies and to coordinate their cleanup efforts with the water purveyors, USEPA enforcement under the CERCLA process does not allow USEPA to require such considerations and efforts. It is for these reasons that WQA aggressively seeks funds from PRPs before, during and after project implementation, either voluntarily, through mandated CERCLA actions or through litigation measures. If funds cannot be generated from PRPs to begin an identified early action project, WQA will work with individual purveyors, the MSGBW and/or other local agencies to develop funding for the project using federal and/or state funds, WQA member agency funds, including individual purveyors, and only if necessary, its own assessment. A summary of funding sources and amounts is included as Table 1. In addition, Table 1 shows an estimated funding gap which is updated semi-annually to reflect changing conditions. The funding gap is $691 709 million which is down up $12 18 million over the last reporting period. This change reflects updated information received from each project. Potentially Responsible Parties - The WQA is committed to securing PRP funding for any given project. In the absence of sufficient PRP funds, WQA and others may combine resources to fund a project. In this event, WQA may choose to initiate cost recovery actions, as it did previously in the BPOU, in which WQA brought two separate legal actions against PRPs to recover costs incurred from the La Puente Valley County Water District (“LPVCWD”) Treatment Plant and the Big Dalton Well Treatment Facility. In 2002, WQA along with three affected purveyors (“water entities”) jointly settled with 13 of the more than 60 PRPs in the SEMOU. Thereafter, the water entities initiated litigation against the remaining PRPs in a concerted effort to recover escalating costs and ensuring funds for future operations of the cleanup projects built with WQA participation. In November 2007, the USEPA filed two Consent Decrees (“CDs”), for a total of $12.5 million as a result of settlements between WQA, affected purveyors, several PRPs, USEPA and DTSC. The added funds helped to continue operating about eight water purification facilities in the SEMOU. In July 2008, WQA completed USEPA’s grant application to gain access to the funds recovered in one of the CDs. The second CD was appealed by recalcitrant PRPs not included in the CD. On June 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit


Page 15

Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court for further hearings. As a result of the delays associated with the challenges to the CDs the USEPA obtained $2.2 million in gap funding from their Superfund program in July 2010 to help offset a portion of the water entity Interim Record Of Decision (IROD) costs. The second CD was ultimately entered in 2011 upon conclusion of the appeals process. In 2011, five additional CD’s were entered by the court for settlements with additional parties totaling approximately $20 million. Ongoing settlement discussions continue with the remaining parties. Additionally, while the second CD was being appealed negotiations continued with the remaining PRPs resulting in the subsequent approval of six additional CDs . Settlements to date from all eight entered CDs total $32.3 million. Federal Government - As a result of ongoing efforts by WQA and other local agencies, two federal programs have been authorized by Congress specifically for the Basin. Both programs are administered through the USBR and are used, to the maximum extent possible, to accelerate cleanup and to provide incentives for PRPs to address affected water suppliers, while implementing cleanup actions in the Basin under CERCLA. San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund - In December of 2000, through the leadership of Congressman David Dreier, Congress authorized the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund (“Restoration Fund”). The authorization provides $85 million for groundwater cleanup, $10 million for the CBMWD to cleanup the Central Basin and $75 million for the WQA to cleanup the Basin. This program requires a 35% non-federal match to obtain a maximum reimbursement of 65% from federal sources. These funds are available for design, construction and operation for up to 10 years following construction. To date, the CBMWD has received its full $10 million appropriation and WQA has received $70.5 million of its $75 million appropriation. In recognition of the cleanup progress, and the need for additional funding to meet an estimated $691 709 million funding gap, Congressman Dreier along with his colleagues in the San Gabriel Congressional Delegation introduced H.R. 123 in January 2007 to raise the authorization on the Restoration Fund by $50 million. The additional authorization would increase the total cap to $135 million. H.R. 123 passed the House on December 12, 2007 and was referred for approval to the United States Senate. On June 16, 2008, H.R. 123 was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Unfortunately by the close of 2008, H.R. 123 was not heard or voted on in the United States Senate.


Page 16

In January 2009, Congressman Dreier reintroduced the H.R. 123 language as H.R. 102 in the new Congressional session. In addition, Senator Harry Reid introduced S. 22 in the U.S. Senate and it also included the language of H.R. 102. S. 22 passed the U.S. Senate and awaited passage in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, in March 2009, Congress passed the large Omnibus Land Bill H.R. 146. H.R. 146 included the language from Congressman Dreier’s H.R. 102 and effectively raised the total cap of the Restoration Fund to $146.2 million. This total includes an additional $50 million for the San Gabriel Basin and an additional $11.2 million for the Central Basin over the original $85 million authorization. In 2011, Congresswoman Judy Chu introduced H.R. 3132 to provide an additional five years that projects can receive operational funding from the Restoration Fund. Title XVI - In 1992, Congress authorized the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project to implement conjunctive use projects in the Basin. By implementing cleanup projects that provide a reliable source of water and reduce the need for outside sources of water, many of the Basin’s cleanup projects are eligible for this program. This program requires a 75% non-federal match to reimburse the project up to a maximum of 25% from federal sources. Funds from this program may be used for design and construction only. In 2004, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano authored H.R. 1284 which was passed and signed into law. The legislation raised the cap on the Title XVI program by $6.5 million. The total authorization for the Title XVI program is now $44.5 million. New Water Supply Coalition/Tax Credit Bond Legislation - The WQA is a member of the New Water Supply Coalition (“Coalition”). The Coalition is composed of water districts located from California to Florida. The Coalition seeks to fund water infrastructure projects throughout the United States by using Tax Credit Bonds. In 2007, the Coalition was successful in having Congressman Xavier Becerra and Congressman Jon Porter introduce H.R. 3452, the Clean Renewable Water Supply Bond Act (“CREWS Bonds”). CREWS Bonds would provide a potential source of funding for the WQA’s cleanup projects. The CREWS Bond program would allow the WQA to float Tax Credit Bonds that would provide the holder of the bond with a tax credit to offset their tax liability. Unfortunately, the legislation was not enacted prior to the end of the 110th Congress.


Page 17

In 2009, Representatives Xavier Becerra and Ginny Brown-Waite reintroduced the Clean Renewable Water Supply Bond Act, H.R. 4132 along with original cosponsors Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Adam Putnam (R-FL), and Laura Richardson (D-CA). The Coalition was ultimately able to secure 22 co-sponsors. A companion bill, S. 1371, was also introduced in the Senate by Bill Nelson (D-FL). Unfortunately, neither bill was enacted by the 111th Congress. State Government - The WQA has been working tirelessly to educate State agencies, the Administration, and Legislators and their staff on the merits of financial participation in the near term and the potential impacts of lack of participation on State and local agencies in the future. The WQA continues to emphasize that stemming the flow and mitigating the spread of contamination is more cost effective and reduces the impact on both the State and local ratepayers. As described in the previous federal funding sections regarding the Restoration Fund and Title XVI funds, a non-federal match is required in order to release the federal funds. While WQA will continue to work with PRPs to help meet that match, additional funds are still needed to release available federal dollars. The WQA has actively worked with the current Administration and other stakeholders in Sacramento to identify State-partnership funding opportunities. The WQA regularly updates CAL EPA, the Department of Public Health, the Governor’s Office, as well as incoming members of the Legislature, on the funding needs and challenges associated with clean up of the San Gabriel Basin. AB 2823, introduced in 2008 by Assemblymember Eng, proposed establishing a San Gabriel Basin State Restoration Fund, similar to the Federal San Gabriel Restoration Fund. It passed the Assembly on a 73/2 vote and unanimously passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. However, it was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee due to concerns about cost pressures on the State. Clean Up and Abatement Account Funding from the SWRCB - In September, 2007, the SWRCB awarded a grant of $1.42 million to the WQA from its Clean Up and Abatement Account to provide funding for the removal of 1,4-dioxane and other VOCs at WQA’s Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility (“WSGRF”). Under the USEPA Record of Decision, no PRPs are liable for the cleanup costs of 1,4-dioxane. The funding will cover the costs of construction and five years of operation for six extraction wells that will remove the contaminants and protect many down gradient drinking water wells. WQA received the fully executed and signed grant agreement from the SWRCB on June 30, 2008. The Whitmore Street


Page 18

Groundwater Remediation Facility was completed and dedicated in 2008. (See Appendix A - SEMOU Shallow Zone Extraction for the status of this project.) State Bond Funds - In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 13, which authorized the sale of $1.9 billion for the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act. This bond included an authorization of $7 million in funding assistance for groundwater cleanup programs. Although the original intent of the language was to provide grant funds, the DTSC interpreted the funding language to mean “loans” and established procedures in 2001 for low interest 20-year loans. WQA applied for the full $7 million on behalf of the Valley County Water District (“VCWD”) Subarea 1 (“SA1”) project and was awarded the entire amount. In November, 2002, California voters passed a $3.44 billion bond, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, also known as Proposition 50. Very little of the funds in this bond are available for groundwater cleanup and protection activities and those funds that are available are limited to construction costs only. The WQA partnered with the San Gabriel Valley Water Company (“SGVWC”) and submitted a grant request for Proposition 50 funding to the Department of Public Health (DPH”), but the project was not ranked high enough to receive funding. The WQA, through its Assistant Executive Director/Senior Engineer, is actively engaged in the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (“IRWMP”) for the San Gabriel Basin and the Greater Los Angeles area. Funding to implement projects within IRWMPs may be forthcoming in future years from Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, which provides $5.3 billion for water, parks, habitat and natural resources projects and programs. Proposition 84 also provides $60 million to the DPH for groundwater cleanup projects that provide drinking water. But the language in the initiative limited these funds to capital costs only, excluding treatment and remediation costs which are the actual costs of clean up. The costs to extract the contaminated water and treat it comprise the bulk of the current funding gap in the Basin of approximately $691 709 million. In 2008, the Proposition 84 appropriations bill SB 2XX was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. It included language appropriating $10 million for groundwater contamination projects which meet certain criteria, two of which include being located at Superfund sites and being able to leverage other funds. In October 2009, the WQA submitted Notices


Page 19

of Intent to apply for five cleanup projects in the Basin per the implementation guidelines released by DPH in the prior weeks. Unfortunately, the expedited grant schedule did not allow enough time for the project proponents to complete CEQA before the final application was due to DPH on January 7, 2010. Therefore, the projects were not considered for this round funding. However, in 2011 DPH solicited applications for a second round of funding and WQA submitted six projects. On April 20, 2012 DPH announced awards for five of the projects totaling approximately $10M, that are currently under consideration for funding. In November 2009, the State Legislature passed several water bills including SB 7X2, an $11.1 billion water bond, titled The Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking water Supply Act of 2010, which was subsequently signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, for inclusion on the November, 2010 ballot for voter consideration. However, in August 2010, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill delaying the bond measure to the November, 2012 ballot. And the measure was delayed once again in 2012 when the Legislature and Governor approved moving it to November 2014. Through the united efforts of the San Gabriel Valley State Legislative Caucus SB 7X2 includes language that is favorable to the WQA’s efforts to secure future funding for projects in the Basin. However, due to drafting errors, SB 7X2 again included language that limited the funds to capital projects. The Legislature’s leadership assured the Caucus of their support to remedy the deficiencies. To that end, AB 153 was introduced by the leadership of the San Gabriel Valley Legislative Caucus (Hernandez, Eng, and Huff), to correct the drafting errors in the water bond. The section of the water bond that allocates $100 million for projects to address groundwater contamination would cover the costs of projects, programs, and activities necessary to clean up the ground water. This language will also permit the bond funds to be used for actual treatment and remediation. AB 153 required a two thirds vote of both the Senate and the Assembly to pass (any amendment to this water bond requires a two thirds vote). On August 31, 2010, the bill passed its final vote and was sent to Governor Schwarzenegger for signature. If the water bond is passed by voters in November, 2012 2014, the WQA will be well positioned to access bond funds for the first time, to use as a match for federal funds for actual clean up of contamination. We will continue to work with the San Gabriel Valley State Legislative Caucus to further enhance the WQA’s ability to access funding. The WQA will continue to seek to ensure that any proposed State water bonds include significant funding and appropriate language for groundwater remediation projects. Working with other water entities in the Basin, the


Page 20

WQA will lead efforts to formulate a comprehensive approach to water infrastructure in the Basin. The WQA will look to any future proposed bond packages for much needed funding for cleanup projects in the Basin Water Quality Authority - WQA imposes an annual pumping rights assessment for capital and operational costs of $7.25 per acre-foot which generates $1.45M annually. These funds are utilized only when available federal and/or state funding is insufficient, in addition to PRP funds. If PRPs do not voluntarily provide funds to a project, then the WQA, on a project-by-project basis, considers the use of assessment funds to underwrite the project costs with or without other local dollars. However, the WQA is committed to recovering its costs from non-participating PRPs at a later date so that the cost to the local consumer will ultimately be minimized. Water Purveyors/Cities/Member Agencies/Other Local Water Agencies- The WQA requires impacted water purveyors to fund or secure funds other than WQA’s assessment representing a minimum of 25% of capital costs. In the event projects cannot be otherwise fully funded using any or all of the above funding sources, WQA will work with an affected city, member water agency and/or other local water agencies to develop potential funding sources. The WQA will pursue the recovery of these funds on behalf of the participating agency, if necessary.

Status of Non-Operable Unit Specific Plans Within the Basin the majority of contamination is located within the boundaries of the six identified operable units. However isolated pockets of contamination exist throughout the Basin. Inside the known operable units, USEPA has established a methodical process that includes the review of the extent of contamination, development of cleanup options and selection of the most appropriate cleanup plan. Contamination outside the known operable units has no such process for cleanup activities to take place. Affected purveyors must assess the need for treatment or try to secure other sources of water. WQA endorses the construction of treatment facilities that are consistent with WQA’s Administrative Procedure No. 38, discussed later in this report, and will assist in any means possible.

Currently there are four treatment facilities operating outside the boundaries of known operable units. Three of the treatment facilities are currently treating VOC’s by carbon adsorption technology:

• City of Arcadia’s Longden Wells treatment facility began operation in January of 1985. It has treated approximately 65,394.95 65,949.44 acre-feet and removed approximately 718 718.7 pounds of contamination as of December 2011. There is no current estimate on how long the treatment facility will need to operate.


Page 21

• City of Monrovia’s Myrtle Well field treatment facility began operation in March of 1996. It has treated approximately 41,232.92 43,159.46 acre-feet and removed approximately 610 624.2 pounds of contamination as of December 2011. There is no current estimate on how long the treatment facility will need to operate.

• San Gabriel Valley Water Company’s Well 11B treatment facility began operation March of 1991. It has treated approximately 38,924.78 39,317.33 acre-feet and removed approximately 303 304.8 pounds of contamination as of December 2011. There is no current estimate on how long the treatment facility will need to operate.

The remaining treatment project utilizes ion exchange technology for the removal of a combination of nitrates and perchlorate: Golden State Water Company’s Highway treatment facility began operation in May of 2005. It has treated approximately 11,924.60 12,818.60 acre-feet and removed approximately 146 169.0 pounds of contamination as of December 2011. There is no current estimate on how long the treatment facility will need to operate.

There are numerous wells that are vulnerable to contamination in the Basin with the bulk located within known operable units. Some of the water purveyors that may need treatment in the future and are located outside of known operable units include but not limited to City of Arcadia, City of Glendora, Valencia Heights Water Company and the City of Whittier.

Operable Unit Specific Plans After more than 20 years of studies and investigations, USEPA's CERCLA activities have progressed to a point where the configuration of the required remedies, in conjunction with local needs, can be determined in most areas. In general, these remedies include multiple groundwater extraction and treatment facilities designed to remove and contain the spread of contamination. Appendix A presents the WQA’s specific plans for the individual OUs including key components and OU specific issues. Table 1 identifies the project costs of each OU within the Basin boundaries.

Projected activities of the next reporting period During the next reporting period WQA will continue to play an integral role in protecting the groundwater supplies of the Basin by actively participating in all operable unit remedies to ensure that the necessary facilities are constructed and treatment and remediation continues to occur in a manner that provides the greatest benefit to the residents of the Basin.


Page 22

BPOU - Additional modifications necessary to operate the BPOU remedy projects in the most cost effective way possible will continue. Once all modifications are complete the BPOU projects combine to provide up to 25,900 gpm of potable supply. WQA will continue to participate in decisions that affect project treatment and remediation activities as a member of the project committee. SEMOU - WQA anticipates that additional CDs for the SEMOU will be finalized, allowing funds recovered from PRPs to be funneled by WQA to the SEMOU water entities to ensure continued treatment and remediation of the SEMOU plume. In addition, the Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility will continue operations of extraction wells and the centralized treatment facility, thereby protecting down-gradient water supply wells from further contamination. The six extraction wells and treatment facility began full-time treatment and remediation of the contaminant plume in January 2008. EMOU - WQA will continue to participate in the remedial activities including but not limited to remedial design, project oversight and federal reimbursement activities associated with the EMOU. It is anticipated that the work parties will begin construction of the extraction wells and associated pipelines. In addition WQA will encourage that the end use of the treated water be put for beneficial use whenever possible. PVOU - WQA will continue to participate in the remedial activities including but not limited to remedial design, project oversight and federal reimbursement activities associated with the PVOU remedy. WQA anticipates that the discharge issues that have halted work in the PVOU will be rectified and construction activities will resume. Area 3 - It is anticipated that the City of Alhambra will continue to operate its Phase I and Phase II treatment facilities. In addition, WQA will assist USEPA and LARWQCB whenever possible to further characterize contamination within the Area 3 boundaries. WNOU – WQA will be assisting the USEPA and DTSC in developing a long-term plan to guarantee the continued operation of the WNOU remedy and to ensure that the remedy is performing as required by the WNOU ROD. Non-Operable Unit Projects - The City of La Verne will continue to operate its 2,575 gpm nitrate and VOC treatment facility.


Page 23

Priorities for Project Funding

WQA utilizes a number of tools to prioritize projects for funding. To be eligible for funding consideration, proposed projects must meet all of the following conditions:

• Project must be located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the WQA

• Applicant(s) must demonstrate, through WQA’s Procedure No. 38 process, (described in the following section) that the project in the area of the proposed groundwater remediation project removes contamination, and protects and/or prevents groundwater contamination from spreading into clean areas

• Applicant(s) must demonstrate that the project water will be put to beneficial use, with priority given to those projects which include an affected water purveyor and provides potable water, if applicable

• Project must conform and further the objectives of the WQA §406 Plan or the intent thereof

• Project must be consistent with the legislative intent of the statute(s) authorizing or appropriating the public funds used for project funding reimbursement

• Project cannot have been used in calculating the 35% credit provision in the Restoration Funds

• Project cannot have begun operating prior to July 1, 1999 (this provision may be waived by the WQA Board)

• Start of project construction for a new project must be anticipated within 18 months of executed agreement between WQA and applicant(s)

• Applicant(s) must provide a plan that commits 100% of the required funds in WQA’s account in advance of each payment owed on the project and prior to each reimbursement request.

San Gabriel Basin WQA Policy and Procedures Manual - Administrative Procedure 38 - WQA evaluates projects submitted to determine whether the projects are “necessary” and “consistent” with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). For cost recovery purposes, remediation projects are considered “necessary” if there


Page 24

is evidence of a release of hazardous substances, the project is designed to mitigate the impact of such releases and the project is needed to meet regulatory requirements for remediation and/or water supply. The determination of necessity shall be based on data of sufficient quality and quantity to satisfy the WQA. Remediation projects are considered “consistent” with the NCP if the remediation project is in substantial compliance with the applicable requirements of the NCP and results in a CERCLA-quality clean-up. Specific potentially applicable NCP requirements are addressed below. Criteria to which a proposed project shall be measured, but not required, are as follows:

• Project conforms and furthers the objectives of WQA’s §406 Plan or the intent thereof

• Ranking on priority list if multiple requests are competing for available funds

• Project is “necessary” and “consistent” with the NCP

• Requesting party to pay no less than 25% of capital costs

• Funding for operation and maintenance secured from funds other than WQA assessment

• Implementation of construction anticipated within one year of executed agreement

Projects are scored according to the questions and corresponding scores listed in Table 2. Once scored, the projects are then ranked according to the criteria in Table 3. The higher scores represent a higher ranked priority position within each category for available funding.

Contractor Selection Competitive bids are typically used for contractor selection when project funding sources include WQA assessments, local water funds, or funding from the State or Federal government. Projects with federal dollars follow the federal contracting guidelines regarding competitive bids. Sole source awards may occur, consistent with either federal guidelines, or the criteria established by the individual water purveyor.


Page 25

Criteria used to quantitatively evaluate projects for effectiveness During the initial stages of a potential treatment project extensive studies are conducted to ensure the project is located in the appropriate area to achieve:

• an effective contaminant capture and containment zone

• the halting of contamination migration into adjacent clean water supplies

• meeting the water supply objectives of the affected water purveyor

WQA plays a key role during this evaluation process to ensure that each project provides the greatest protection to the water supply of the residents of the Basin while minimizing any economic impact. WQA has developed the following criteria to evaluate projects for effectiveness:

• How much contaminant mass is removed from the Basin?

• How much of the treated water is used for beneficial

purposes?

• How many downgradient wells are being protected?

• Does the project integrate cleanup with water supply?

WQA also considers that overall impact of the combined cleanup projects. Figure 9 demonstrates the number of treatment plants coming online has grown steadily since WQA’s inception in 1993. The total pounds of contaminants removed and acre-feet of water treated are shown in Figure 10.


Page 26

APPENDIX A


Page 27

Appendix A – Operable Unit Area Plans BALDWIN PARK OPERABLE UNIT Of the five areas of contamination in the Basin, the BPOU is considered the most significant because of the geographic size and degree of contamination. For this reason USEPA prioritized this area for investigation back in the late 1980's. By 1994, there was a general consensus on the technical approach including a financial arrangement whereby sales from the water produced by the treatment plant would be used to offset the costs of the project. However, just as designs were being prepared, the discovery of new contaminants prompted a complete reevaluation of cleanup plans. In 1997, perchlorate, a contaminant derived from solid rocket fuel, was discovered in many of the active production wells within the OU. This discovery had widespread impacts, primarily because traditional treatment methods were ineffective in removing perchlorate from the groundwater. The new discovery not only disrupted the design of the CERCLA remedy, but also shut down many of the existing treatment plants that had been operating for water supply purposes. In one case, a water purveyor's (LPVCWD) complete water supply was shut down due to excessive concentrations of perchlorate that could not be removed by treatment facilities currently in place. This forced the water purveyor to buy alternative groundwater supply from neighboring water purveyors and supplemental imported water costing five times the cost of groundwater before the discovery of perchlorate. Based on the discovery of perchlorate, USEPA chose to update its ROD and issue a plan update. This update was similar to the original ROD except that the containment requirement in the southern portion of the OU unit was shifted further downgradient to address the new contaminants and the larger VOC plume resulting from several years of movement since the original ROD was issued. USEPA’s plan required that about 22,000 gpm of contaminated groundwater be extracted and treated. The update did not, however, specify how the water was to be used. In 1998, although USEPA had recently accepted a “good faith offer” from a portion of the BPOU PRPs to conduct the required cleanup, the specifics of the offer suggested that the PRPs intended to construct cleanup facilities without addressing the local water supply needs. The promise of the good faith offer was to extract water from the specified locations, treat the water at centralized facilities using emerging (unapproved) treatment technology and then discharge the water into nearby surface water channels. This approach was met with strong resistance that could have resulted in further delays and continuance of the existing water supply crisis. In addition,


Page 28

USEPA’s approach focused on overall containment of the plume and did not include projects that were outside of USEPA’s primary objectives that would have beneficial effects on both cleanup and water supply. In response to this situation, WQA prescribes a cleanup plan developed by the MSGBW (Figure 2) that integrates cleanup and water supply objectives. The first phase of this plan focused on the southern portion of the plume where the priority is highest to contain the plume, protect critical water supplies and restore critical water supplies. In 1999, due to the critical need for immediate action, WQA, MSGBW and the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (“USGVMWD”) joined resources and began implementation of the plan by constructing the first facility to treat both perchlorate and NDMA for drinking water at the LPVCWD well site. Following the success of the LPVCWD project, WQA prescribed additional early actions that build on the LPVCWD project development model. In 2002, eight of the 20 BPOU PRPs entered into a comprehensive project agreement with WQA, MSGBW and local purveyors to fund the prescribed remedy described in this section. Southern Remedy - In conjunction with the LPVCWD treatment project constructed in 2000, a new treatment facility located at the SGVWC Plant B6 treatment facility near the southern extension of the plume was prescribed for immediate implementation. The project also included the construction of four new extraction wells (B25A, B25B, B26A and B26B) and transmission pipelines connecting the extraction wells to the Plant B6 treatment facility. The project finished construction in 2004 and received its 97-005 amended water supply permit from the DPH in June 2005. The water extracted from this facility is needed by SGVWC to replace production capacity lost when contamination forced the closure of the then operating water treatment facilities that lacked the ability to remove the newly discovered contaminants, perchlorate and NDMA. The project has the ancillary benefit of protecting downgradient water supply wells by halting the southeastern migration of contaminant mass. The next component of the remedy prescribed for the southern area is a new treatment facility that is located at the SGVWC Plant B5. The project finished construction and began testing in 2007. In April 2008, the Plant B5 treatment facility received its amended water supply permit from DPH. The Plant B5 treatment facility will treat water from an existing well (B5B), from a new extraction well drilled on site (B5E) and from an existing City of Industry well located in the San Fidel Well Field. The Plant B5 facility will be


Page 29

necessary to meet water supply demand and to serve as a final containment point to prevent the further degradation of clean aquifers resulting from the migrating BPOU contamination plume. This plan prescribes immediate implementation and long term operation of the southern remedies for the BPOU including all of the necessary facilities to achieve full containment of the BPOU plume at the downgradient edge. In June 2008, the last component of the BPOU remedy became operational. These facilities will accelerate removal of contaminant mass in the Basin, prevent migration of contamination into critical groundwater water supplies, and through the integration of cleanup with water supply objectives, mitigate the existing water supply crisis in the area. As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, the southern remedy projects have treated approximately 46,926 million gallons 154,763.29 acre-feet of contaminated groundwater and have removed approximately 22,984 24,446.3 lbs of VOCs, perchlorate, NDMA and 1,4-Dioxane. Northern Remedy - In 2005 construction was completed on a new treatment facility at the VCWD Arrow/Lante wellfield. The new treatment facility known as SA1 treatment facility will consist of all necessary treatment technology and two new extraction wells (SA1-1 and SA1-2) that were constructed east of the treatment facility which will deliver raw water to the facility via new transmission pipelines. The plan also includes a treated water pipeline to deliver some of the treated water to Suburban Water Systems (“SWS”). In 2007, VCWD discovered TCP in its SA1 extraction wells and was forced to construct additional Liquid Phase Granular Activated Carbon (“LPGAC”) treatment at SA1 to combat the new found contamination. Implementation of the northern remedy will provide significant removal of mass from the Basin and is a necessary component of the overall BPOU plan. However, with the exception of the SA1 treatment facility, the northern remedy provides only ancillary benefits towards preventing migration of contamination towards critical water supplies. This is primarily because no groundwater production is currently occurring in the central and northern portions of the plume. With the southern remedy in place, the most severe water supply crises are addressed; however, it will still be important to put the treated water to beneficial use and not waste such a valuable resource. To achieve rapid implementation in both areas, only treatment processes that are approved as Best Available Treatment Technologies (“BATT”) by DPH shall be used to meet drinking water requirements. This requirement is necessary to assure that lengthy approval processes normally associated with emerging technologies are eliminated. Use of BATTs will be necessary to accelerate removal of contaminant mass from the Basin and to restore


Page 30

impacted potable water supplies. However, wherever practical, other technologies may be considered if significant and exceptional benefits are shown to outweigh the need for urgency. In addition, as new technologies become available, the WQA prescribes that cost effective studies and pilot programs are pursued in order to maximize the potential savings in cleanup costs over the life of the projects. For example, multiple projects are using an ion exchange technology that may be outdated and costly. New resin technology has been introduced that could provide alternatives to the existing technology, and studies have been undertaken to assess the benefits of switching over if the lifetime benefits appear to be substantial. In 2009, these studies have led to changing out the existing ion exchange treatment technologies at LPVCWD’s treatment facility, SGVWC’s Plant B6 treatment facility and VCWD’s SA1 treatment facility from a regenerable resin technology to a more efficient single-pass resin technology. As a result of changing from a regenerable resin ion exchange technology to a single –pass technology SGVWC will lose the ancillary benefit of some nominal nitrate treatment. Therefore, DPH is requiring SGVWC to construct additional nitrate treatment at its Plant B6 to ensure continued operation of the treatment facility. The new nitrate treatment will utilize an ion exchange treatment system but will be designed specifically for nitrate removal. In the cases where existing technology remains in place, careful optimization will be performed regularly on the equipment in order to achieve the best effective operation and the lowest operating cost possible. As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, the northern remedy project has treated approximately 13,944 million gallons 46,980.74 acre-feet of contaminated groundwater and has removed approximately 32,038 34,611.2 lbs of VOCs, perchlorate, NDMA and 1,4-Dioxane. Other Remedies - California Domestic Water Company’s (“CDWC”) Well No. 14 is threatened by contamination emanating from the BPOU, including perchlorate and NDMA. CDWC expanded their existing VOC and NDMA treatment systems by including a perchlorate treatment system. The project is also designed to protect CDWC’s downgradient wells. Construction was completed in June of 2002. As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, the CDWC project has treated approximately 85,747 million gallons 270,022.19 acre-feet of contaminated groundwater and has removed approximately 9,186 9,728.9 lbs of VOCs, perchlorate and NDMA. After losing their Plant 139 wellfield to the BPOU contamination, SWS constructed new production wells at their Plant 121, Plant 142 and Plant 152 wellfields. The interim project also included the construction of a


Page 31

pipeline that will allow for better operational flexibility and provide additional supply to their affected service area. SOUTH EL MONTE OPERABLE UNIT The SEMOU is generally characterized by shallow groundwater contamination that is mostly contained in the upper 100 feet of the aquifer; however some contamination in the northwest and southern portions of the OU has migrated below 100 feet into the intermediate zone aquifers currently used for potable supplies. Contamination in the SEMOU is predominately VOCs with perchlorate concentrations in certain wells exceeding the State MCL of 6 ppb. Furthermore, cleanup has been complicated by the presence of low concentrations of 1,4-Dioxane in the OU. The contamination in the SEMOU presents significant threats to local water supplies. One threat is to the aquifers and groundwater supply centers in the northwest portion of the OU and to the northwest of the OU itself. The other is directed towards the Whittier Narrows Dam and the Central Basin to the south. The threat to the northwest has already impacted several critical water supply wells, primarily those owned by the CMP, SGVWC and Golden State Water Company (“GSWC”). These water purveyors have had to implement treatment facilities in order to resolve their water supply crises. The other predominant threat is from contamination in the shallow aquifers near the source areas that provide a continuous source of contamination that has traveled as far south as the Whittier Narrows Dam. Continued migration of the contamination past the Whittier Narrows Dam threatens many production wells and the sensitive recharge areas within the Central Basin. Immediate action is clearly needed to address these imminent threats. To address the VOC groundwater contamination in the SEMOU, USEPA released its Interim ROD (“IROD”) in September 2000. The IROD specifies extraction from the intermediate zone at or near CMP’s existing well No. 5, CMP’s existing well No. 12, SGVWC’s existing Plant No. 8 wellfield, and GSWC’s existing San Gabriel (SG1 & SG2) wellfield. USEPA’s plan also includes a new extraction well (CMP No. 15) northeast of CMP No. 12. USEPA’s goal is to contain the flow of contaminants and prevent exposure to downgradient pumping centers operated by CMP, SGVWC, and other purveyors. Although USEPA recommends the use of existing water supply facilities, the PRPs are not mandated to use these facilities in their response, nor are they obligated to integrate water supply with the required remedy. After the discovery of perchlorate in several SEMOU water supply wells and 1,4-Dioxane in the shallow zone of the SEMOU, USEPA considered issuing either an IROD Amendment or an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) to require treatment for emerging chemicals


Page 32

(“ECs”). In 2005 USEPA issued an ESD for the SEMOU to include treatment of perchlorate in the intermediate zone and reserved the right to include treatment for 1,4-Dioxane and other ECs at a later date. With the exception of perchlorate treatment, WQA’s prescribed actions for the SEMOU have, for the most part, been put into place and are consistent with USEPA’s proposed plan. They address specific concerns that (1) action needed to take place immediately to halt further migration into critical water supplies, (2) complications in the negotiations with the PRPs would delay USEPA’s implementation schedule, and (3) PRPs may choose to fulfill their CERCLA responsibility to USEPA without addressing the need to restore water supplies. Specifically, the prescribed actions referenced below have and will address both the immediate threat and water supply crisis prevalent in the northwest portion of the OU and the long-term threat to Central Basin to the south. To date, USEPA has lodged six CDs embodying settlements with 43 PRPs for costs associated with implementation of the SEMOU remedy. The funds recovered by USEPA will be used to reimburse affected water purveyors for future treatment and remediation costs associated with the continued operation of remedy wells and treatment facilities as described in the SEMOU remedy through a cooperative agreement between USEPA and WQA. Intermediate Zone Remedy - To address the threat presented in the northwest portion of the OU, WQA’s prescribed action (Figure 3) includes the existing VOC and perchlorate blending treatment facility at CMP No. 5 along with the existing VOC treatment facilities at CMP No. 12, SGVWC Plant 8 and GSWC SG1 & SG2. Additionally, the plan specifies that water from CMP remediation Well No. 15 be treated at the existing treatment facility at CMP No. 12. This plan promotes the beneficial use of the treated water by the appropriate water purveyors. To that end, WQA entered into funding contracts in the year 2000 with CMP, GSWC and SGVWC to construct VOC treatment projects ahead of enforcement action by USEPA. SGVWC's Plant No. 8 VOC treatment facility was completed in October 2000 and is currently operating. Rising levels of VOCs in the wells at Plant 8 caused the DPH to require SGVWC to install a secondary barrier treatment system. Construction of a LPGAC secondary barrier treatment system to polish the air stripper effluent was completed in 2005. As part of the amended water supply permit issued to SGVWC by DPH to operate the Plant No. 8 VOC treatment facility, a sentinel well had to be installed upgradient and within two years travel time of the Plant No. 8 wells. The primary purpose of the sentinel well is to provide an “early warning” of


Page 33

emerging contaminants that might affect the operation of the Plant No. 8 VOC treatment facility. SGVWC’s recent analyses of the sentinel well revealed and confirmed the presence of perchlorate and 1,4-Dioxane at concentrations just below the DPH MCL and NL, respectively. Because the current Plant No. 8 VOC treatment facility is not capable of removing perchlorate or 1,4-Dioxane, SGVWC has plans to construct a 5,000 gpm, single pass ion exchange and advanced oxidation ultraviolet (“UV”) light treatment facility for the removal of perchlorate and 1,4-Dioxane if levels reach 50% of the respective MCL and NL. The addition of the ion exchange UV light treatment facility will ensure continued operation of the Plant No. 8 VOC treatment facility and continued remediation of the SEMOU groundwater. Both CMP’s and GSWC’s VOC treatment facilities for Well No. 12 and SG1 & SG2, respectively, were completed. However, the wells for both plants were subsequently found to be contaminated with perchlorate and immediately shut down. In 2004, CMP completed construction of a perchlorate treatment plant for Well No. 12. In addition to the VOC treatment, GSWC currently operates an interim perchlorate treatment facility for Well SG1. However based on two years of non-detects for perchlorate contamination, GSWC and CMP have deactivated their perchlorate treatment systems. GSWC is currently in discussions with DPH to return well SG2 to service and restore plant capacity. CMP has constructed additional piping to bypass their perchlorate treatment equipment while maintaining it in a state of readiness if future perchlorate treatment is needed. Both projects are endorsed as they are designed to restore lost water supply and protect existing downgradient production wells. CMP has completed the construction of Well No. 15 and the pipeline to Well No. 12. Additionally, CMP has proposed to construct additional VOC treatment at the Well No. 5 site. The additional treatment is necessary to ensure proper remediation of VOC contamination and to restore treatment facility capacity by connecting existing Well No. 6 to the treatment facility at Well No. 5. Construction of the additional treatment and a pipeline connection is anticipated to begin in mid-2012. As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, the intermediate zones remedy projects have treated approximately 30,132 million gallons 97,711.96 acre-feet of contaminated groundwater and have removed approximately 10,231 11,121.7 lbs of VOCs and perchlorate. Other Intermediate Zone Extraction - In addition to the extraction and containment projects identified in the SEMOU IROD, purveyors in the SEMOU had to construct treatment facilities at several of their wells to


Page 34

ensure a safe and reliable water supply in the event that the IROD projects are temporarily removed from service. In 2004, CMP constructed a VOC treatment facility at its Delta Plant to treat VOC contamination that was recently discovered in CMP Well Nos. 1, 3, 10 and Fern. Although not included in USEPA’s remedy, the project is consistent with USEPA’s IROD. SGVWC has constructed a VOC treatment facility at their Plant G4 located within the SEMOU. Although not included in USEPA’s remedy, the project is consistent with USEPA’s IROD. These actions, as prescribed by this plan, will accelerate removal of contaminant mass and help to prevent migration of contamination into critical water supplies. In addition, integrating the cleanup action with the surrounding water supply will mitigate the current water supply crisis caused by the presence of the contamination. As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, other intermediate zone projects have treated approximately 6,804 million gallons 21,796.26 acre-feet of contaminated groundwater and have removed approximately 1,411 1,455.1 lbs of VOCs. Shallow Zone Extraction - Part of WQA’s prescribed response to address the threat to Central Basin was the South El Monte Shallow Extraction Barrier (“South El Monte Barrier”). The South El Monte Barrier was constructed under a voluntary partnership including WQA, several of the local businesses and the City of South El Monte. The objective of the response action was to halt the flow of contaminants near the primary source areas within the SEMOU. The project consisted of two extraction wells, treatment facilities and discharge pipes which allow the treated water to infiltrate back into the aquifer downgradient of the extraction. The project was originally constructed to remove VOCs and later modified with ozone/peroxide treatment to remove 1,4-Dioxane. Given that there are no water supply wells directly affected in the immediate areas and that water from the shallow aquifer is not normally used for potable use by the purveyors, low priority was given to mandating beneficial use of the water. In 2004, the WQA discontinued operation of the South El Monte Barrier after it was determined that USEPA’s fund-led Whittier Narrows project (see the Whittier Narrows Operable Unit (“WNOU”) portion of this plan) would halt the contaminant migration farther downgradient. While this situation was not the preferred alternative, the WQA determined that no water supplies would be affected by discontinuing the project. Additionally, funds made


Page 35

available by discontinuing the South El Monte Barrier were redirected to contain an alternate source of contaminants that was threatening water supplies. In 2005, the WQA initiated design on a shallow groundwater barrier to be constructed in and around the area of the former J.A. Bozung facility. The WSGRF project will remove a hot spot plume of VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane that threatens downgradient water supplies. The barrier started full-time operation in January of 2008 with treatment and remediation estimated to continue through 2012. To date the treatment facility has treated approximately 18.6 million gallons of contaminated groundwater and removed approximately 59 pounds of contamination. As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, the treatment facility has treated approximately 50.6 million gallons 177.50 acre-feet of contaminated groundwater and has removed approximately 106 118.4 lbs of VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane. EL MONTE OPERABLE UNIT The EMOU investigation phase has been completed and the remedial objectives have been specified in an USEPA IROD. This OU is generally characterized by shallow groundwater VOC contamination that is mostly contained in the upper 100 feet of the aquifer. Limited amounts of VOC contamination have migrated into the deeper drinking water supplies and the recent discovery of perchlorate in monitoring wells and production wells threatens to complicate cleanup efforts further. Fortunately, several of the water purveyors have already responded to the spread of contamination by installing wellhead VOC treatment facilities to restore impaired sources of supply before the discovery of perchlorate. However, although many sources were restored, the impact of the contamination on the local water supply remains severe. The City of El Monte (“CEM”), in particular, lost several wells and experienced a shortage of supply. New sources of supply, either from new cleanup facilities or reactivation of existing supplies are greatly needed to enhance and secure the local water supply situation. WQA has provided assistance by leasing the CEM four surplus LPGAC vessels from past WQA projects. To provide long-term protection of these supplies, immediate actions were needed to cut off and contain the movement of contaminants in the shallow aquifer. Elimination of the high concentrations of contaminants near the sources is necessary to provide for rapid reduction of mass from the aquifer and establish long-term protection of downgradient water supplies. To address this emergency need, in 1997 WQA prescribed the immediate implementation of two shallow extraction barriers to stop the flow of contamination on the western and eastern portion of the OU (Figure 4).


Page 36

Anticipating that this type of removal would be required, WQA and many of the PRPs for the EMOU executed agreements to fund the construction of these projects. As part of this early response, WQA sponsored three components (extraction and treatment at the Clayton Manufacturing facility and individual extractions with centralized treatment for Hermetic Seal, and Crown City Plating facilities) which operated for several years. Immediate implementation of the shallow extraction barriers ahead of USEPA’s mandate will complement these other early responses and help to accelerate the removal of mass from the Basin and prevent the further migration of contamination into critical groundwater supplies. In June 1999, USEPA released its IROD which requires containment of the shallow contaminant plume on the western and eastern sides of the OU and containment of the deep contaminant plume on the northwestern and southeastern edges of the OU. In 2002, USEPA released an ESD that requires the containment of emerging chemicals in addition to VOCs. In 2004, due to unrest within the EMOU PRP group, USEPA entered into a CD effectively dividing the PRPs into two distinct work parties, the West Side Performing Settling Defendants (“WSPSD”) and the East Side Performing Settling Defendants (“ESPSD”). West Side Remedy - The WSPSD will be responsible for containment of the western shallow zone contaminant plume and the containment of the northwestern deep zone plume. Containment of the western shallow plume will be accomplished via five extraction wells and a centralized treatment facility. The treatment facility will be designed to treat not only VOCs but all emergent chemicals to below drinking water standards. Construction of the western shallow zone treatment facility, extraction wells and pipeline was completed in January 2012. The existing GSWC Encinita Plant treatment facilities, owned and operated by GSWC and partially funded by the WPSD, along with a VOC treatment facility, owned and operated by Adams Ranch Mutual Water Company (“ARMWC”), will help address the deep zone contaminant plume in the northwestern sector. Both deep zone projects received federal reimbursement from WQA. As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, the west side deep zone remedy projects have treated approximately 5,710 million gallons 18,477.22 acre-feet of contaminated groundwater and have removed 420 439.7 lbs of VOCs. East Side Remedy - The ESPSD will be responsible for containment of the eastern shallow zone contaminant plume and the containment of the southeastern deep zone contaminant plume. Containment of the eastern


Page 37

shallow plume will be accomplished via five extraction wells, a centralized treatment facility and three re-injection wells. The treatment facility will be designed to treat not only VOCs but all ECs. In addition, the ESPSD in conjunction with CEM will be installing three extraction wells in the intermediate zone aquifer in the southeastern sector and constructing a centralized treatment facility to control migration of low levels of VOCs. The treated water will be conveyed into CEM’s existing distribution system in the area. WQA is currently working with the ESPSD to provide federal reimbursements for their projects. As a result of the elevated levels of Nitrates and Total Dissolved Solids (“TDS”) in both west and east shallow zone extraction projects, local water purveyors are not interested in integrating the treated water into the local supply. Thus, WQA prescribes that, to the extent possible, the water extracted from the shallow extraction projects be put to beneficial use for one of the following alternatives: (1) potable source through blending, (2) industrial reuse, (3) re-injection for groundwater recharge, or (4) used as a reclaimed water source. If no beneficial end use is available and all alternatives have been exhausted, the treated water may be discharged to a nearby channel under direction of the LARWCB and pursuant to the MSGBW's rules and regulations. The WSPSD are planning to use a portion of the treated water for industrial processes and discharging the remainder to a nearby channel. The ESPSD will be re-injecting all shallow zone treated water up-gradient of the extraction wells under an LARWQCB discharge permit. Together, all of these facilities will serve to contain the migration of the contamination in the intermediate (potable) aquifers and prevent the further spread of contamination into critical groundwater supplies. Requiring the beneficial use of shallow zone treated water will enhance the local water supply and help to mitigate the current water shortage caused by impairment of water supply wells. WHITTIER NARROWS OPERABLE UNIT In 1999, USEPA issued an amendment to the ROD for the WNOU which identifies the need for a groundwater extraction barrier approximately ¼ mile north of the Whittier Narrows Dam to halt the flow of contamination traveling towards Central Basin. To form an effective containment barrier, five or six extraction sites were required to remove and treat a total of about 12,000 gpm extracting from both the shallow and intermediate zone aquifers. Because USEPA was implementing this remedy under its “fund lead” authority, the responsibility for administering the design, construction and operation of the comprehensive cleanup facility was USEPA. In 2002, USEPA finished construction of the comprehensive cleanup facility.


Page 38

In recognition of the immediate threat to downgradient water supplies in Central Basin and the potential for significant delays associated with a large-scale treatment facility, WQA had prescribed a phased approach (Figure 5) that addressed the most severe threats first with an immediate early action at well EW4-3. WQA prescribed that well EW4-3 be integrated into the comprehensive potable treatment facility proposed by USEPA. WQA implemented the first component of this early action with the construction of a temporary treatment facility located at well EW4-3. Water from well EW4-3 was treated and temporarily discharged into nearby surface drainages until the full-scale remedy could be implemented. USEPA has completed construction of their centralized treatment facility and integrated well EW4-3 into their extraction system. In 2005, the City of Whittier reached an agreement with USEPA to take most of the water extracted from the intermediate zone aquifer and use it as a potable supply for its customers. Water from the shallow zone is extracted at a reduced rate and is being discharged into Legg Lake. In 2006, USEPA conducted a five-year review of the WNOU remedy to ensure that it remains protective of human health and the environment. USEPA concluded that the remedy for the WNOU is protective of human health and the environment. In 2011, USEPA conducted its second five-year review of the WNOU remedy. USEPA concluded that in the shallow zone the extent of contamination has shrunk dramatically since the remedy construction was completed in 2002 and that contamination concentrations have continued to decline consistently over the last five years (2006 to 2010). There are currently no shallow zone MCL exceednces in the WNOU, indicating that continued extraction is not needed to meet the goals of the remedy. As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, the WNOU shallow zone remedy project has treated approximately 9,226 million gallons 29,259.33 acre-feet of contaminated groundwater and has removed approximately 1,616 1,617.8 lbs of VOCs. USEPA’s second five-year review also reports that in the intermediate zone the extent of intermediate zone contamination downgradient of the WNOU extraction wells has declined dramatically since remedy extraction began in 2002. These continued concentration declines have occurred despite intermediate zone extraction averaging less than 3,300 gpm over the last five years. This provides strong evidence that the remedial objectives (hydraulic control of migrating contamination) can be met at a lower extraction rate than the current intermediate zone target extraction rate of 6,000 gpm.


Page 39

As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, the WNOU intermediate zone remedy project has treated approximately 10,281million gallons 33,760.51 acre-feet of contaminated groundwater and has removed approximately 1,190 1,292.9 lbs of VOCs. PUENTE VALLEY OPERABLE UNIT In 1998, the USEPA released the Interim ROD for the PVOU (Figure 6) that described, in part, USEPA’s selected remedy for both shallow and intermediate zone contamination. It stated that the remedial action for the shallow zone shall prevent contaminated groundwater from migrating beyond its current lateral and vertical extent as described in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”). The remedial action selected by USEPA for the intermediate zone shall prevent contaminated groundwater from migrating beyond the SGVWC B7 Well Field Area (an area defined by 14 wells in the immediate area of SGVWC’s B7 Well Field). Furthermore, perchlorate was recently discovered in the B7 Well Field Area causing USEPA to further evaluate remedy options. In 2005 USEPA issued an ESD for the PVOU mandating treatment for all ECs in both the shallow and intermediate zones. In 2009, the PVOU remedial activity was stalled due to conflicting interpretations by two separate divisions of the USEPA, namely the Superfund Division and the Water Division which enforces the Clean Water Act. As a result, USEPA required additional feasibility studies to be conducted to re-evaluate alternatives for the disposition of the treated water in both the shallow and intermediate zone remedies. USEPA is currently evaluating the feasibility studies. WQA will continue to help facilitate solutions that will resolve the cleanup stalemate as soon as possible. Shallow Zone Remedy - In 2005 USEPA entered into a CD with United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) to perform the shallow zone remedy in the PVOU. The shallow zone remedy will consist of the installation of nine extraction wells, associated pipelines and a centralized treatment facility at the mouth of the valley. In 2008, UTC completed the installation of all extraction wells and is currently securing pipeline access agreement. Since water from the shallow zone is not suitable for potable use due to high Nitrates and TDS, UTC originally planned to discharge the treated water into a neighboring creek under a discharge waiver from the LARWQCB. However, recent changes to regulations have eliminated that discharge


Page 40

option. Currently UTC is in the process of evaluating the feasibility of re-injection of the treated water while continuing to actively search for a beneficial end use of the treated water. Intermediate Zone Remedy - The Northrop Grumman Space and Mission System Corporation (“Northrop”), formerly known as the PVOU Steering Committee, has submitted an intermediate zone extraction plan to USEPA for approval. Northrop plans to construct six new extraction wells and pipelines in the mouth of the valley and to utilize the existing VOC treatment facility located at SGVWC’s Plant B7. If any ECs are found in the extracted water Northrop will add additional treatment. It is anticipated that SGVWC will take the treated water and blend it with water extracted from new Wells B24A and B24B. The blended water would then be conveyed into SGVWC’s existing distribution system. In 2008, Northrop finished construction of the extraction wells and a portion of the pipeline. In addition, Northrop has reached an agreement with SGVWC to accept the treated water and to provide a blending component with other SGVWC sources. SGVWC is also constructing a transmission main from its B6 service area to its Plan B24 to facilitate blending of the PVOU treated water. AREA 3 In 1999, USEPA began RI/FS investigations in the Area 3 (“ATOU”). The purpose of the RI/FS is to determine the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination and to identify likely sources. USEPA has completed the installation of additional monitoring wells in order to collect additional data to assess the extent of the contamination and its relationship to suspected source areas. USEPA released the RI in 2010 and is currently evaluating the results to identify cleanup options. Conclusions of the RI will form the basis of an FS to evaluate cleanup alternatives to prevent the release of contaminants at the site. ATOU VOC contamination has impacted a number of the City of Alhambra’s (“Alhambra”) wells. In 2001, Alhambra started operation of Phase I of its pump and treat program. Phase I consists of a VOC treatment facility at Well No. 7. In 2008, Alhambra finished most of the construction of Phase II of its pump and treat program. Phase II consists of VOC and Nitrate treatment technologies at Well No. 8 and has the ability to treat contaminated groundwater from Wells Nos. 8, 11, 12. Alhambra finished construction of Phase II in 2008 and it is operational. All water treated from both Phase I and Phase II projects is used by Alhambra in its distribution system (Figure 7). Both phases of the Alhambra’s pump and treat program received reimbursement from WQA’s federal funding programs. As of December 2011 June 30, 2012, Alhambra’s treatment facilities have treated approximately 5,798 million gallons 19,860.35 acre-feet of


Page 41

contaminated groundwater and have removed approximately 400 475.1 lbs of VOCs and nitrates.

SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITYCHAPTER 404 STATUS REPORT

TABLE 1 - SCHEDULE OF FUNDING FROM POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AND OTHER SOURCESAS OF JUNE 30, 2012

FUNDING FOR CAPITAL AND

TREATMENT & REMEDIATION COSTS1, 2 SEMOU BPOU4 EMOU9 PVOU9 ATOU5 Other6 Total

Responsible Parties $ 12,456,287 $ 327,336,578 $ 47,737,969 $ 51,829,500 $ - $ - $ 439,360,334 EPA Federal Grants & Settlements with Responsible Parties3 7,871,725 - - - - - 7,871,725 Federal Grants - Bureau of Reclamation 14,170,610 48,232,243 10,131,680 4,430,000 3,169,703 3,403,803 83,538,039 State Grants - SWRCB - 4,629,416 - - - - 4,629,416 State Grants - SWRCB Clean Up & Abatement 1,420,000 - - - - - 1,420,000 State Grants - DTSC - 2,853,658 - - - 684,499 3,538,157 State Loan - DTSC (Responsible Parties) 7 - 6,440,000 - - - - 6,440,000 State Funding - Proposition 84 8 2,560,000 6,645,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 - - 13,205,000 Water Producers 16,846,081 28,121,415 83,000 2,500,000 13,997,626 2,778,546 64,326,668 Watermaster - 358,319 - - - - 358,319 WQA Sources (Assessments, interest, etc.) 5,292,041 4,328,578 1,608,653 - - 836,548 12,065,820

Total Funding for Capital and Treatment & Remediation $ 60,616,744 $ 428,945,207 $ 61,061,302 $ 61,259,500 $ 17,167,329 $ 7,703,396 $ 636,753,478

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CAPITAL AND TREATMENT & REMEDIATION 2, 4, 9 $ 158,809,724 $ 874,196,194 $ 125,347,299 $ 123,570,693 $ 34,623,815 $ 29,072,922 $ 1,345,620,647

FUNDING GAP $ (98,192,980) $ (445,250,987) $ (64,285,997) $ (62,311,193) $ (17,456,486) $ (21,369,526) $ (708,867,169)

1

2

3

4 The BPOU agreement currently covers Capital Projects as well as T & R Costs for 15 years of operation. Treatment costs shown above are projected to be ongoing for 30 years.

5 Area Three Operable Unit (ATOU) does not currently have a source of funding for T & R Costs. Treatment is projected for 15 years.

6

7 State Loan - DTSC, shown above as a source of funding, is being repaid to the State of California by the BPOU Responsible Parties.

8Funding for Capital Projects includes $13.2M from the second round of funding from Proposition 84, Section 75025. Agreements for these funds have not yet been finalized.

9

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the U.S. Department of Justice have lodged Consent Decrees which require Responsible Parties to pay a certain amount. WQA has entered into a cooperative agreement with EPA for $5.22 million of these funds. EPA also granted $2,651,725 of additional Superfund funding to the cooperative agreement.

The dollar amounts for future anticipated funds and estimated costs do not include an inflation factor. Although there are currently agreements in place for the funding of future Capital Projects and T & R Costs, the agreements do not specify the timing of the funding contributions, nor is the funding itself guaranteed.

Responsible Parties are projected to fund T & R Costs for the EMOU and the PVOU for 8 years as required by the Consent Decrees. Treatment Costs shown above are projected to be ongoing for 30 years, therefore the remaining 22 years are considered unfunded.

DRAFT

Funding for Capital Projects and T & R has been provided for treatment facilities that are operating outside the bounds of known operable units but are located within the San Gabriel Basin boundaries.

Funding for Capital Projects and Treatment & Remediation ("T & R") Costs reflects funding obligations per current agreements including funds received to date and future anticipated funds.


Page 43

Table 2 – Project Scoring

QUESTION PTS. RESPONSE

Is applicant(s) ready to proceed with the groundwater remediation project?

0 Not fully ready to proceed

10 Yes, ready to proceed

Does the project complement U.S. USEPA’s plans? Is it consistent with USEPA’s plans and the NCP?

0 Does not complement plan and is not consistent

5 Complements and is consistent with USEPA plans

10 Complements and is consistent with USEPA plans and NCP

How effective is project relative to amount of water treated and made available for use? Does the project use technology consistent with BAT?

0 Not effective relative to amount treated & available for use

5 Somewhat effective and consistent with BAT

10 Effective relative to amount treated & available for use, consistent with BAT

What are the impacts or potential impacts to the plume within the Main San Gabriel Basin?

0 No

5 Some impact

15 Very significant impact

Is project a joint cleanup and water supply project?

0 Not a joint cleanup and supply project

5 Only a cleanup project

15 Yes, project is a joint cleanup/supply project

Is project partially or solely funded by affected purveyor(s)?

0 N/A

5 Yes, partially funded by purveyor(s)

10 Yes, solely funded by purveyor(s)

Does the project address immediate water supply needs in the MSG Basin?

0 No

15 Yes

Does the project address a need for migration control?

0 No

15 Yes

Is project partially or solely funded by PRPs through an executed agreement?

0 No PRP agreement

5 Yes, partially funded by PRPs with an agreement

10 Yes, solely funded by PRPs with an agreement


Page 44

Table 3 – Priority Ranking

CATEGORY SCORING RANGE TITLE XVI RESTORATION

FUNDS

Category 1 90-100 0 to 25% up to 65% capital and/or T&R

Category 2 80-89 0 to 25% up to 50% capital and/or T&R

Category 3 70-79 based upon availability

up to 40% capital and/or T&R

Category 4 0-69 based upon availability

up to 30% capital and/or T&R

-FIGURE 1-

Raymond Basin

Chin

o Ba

sin

§̈¦I 210

§̈¦I 10

£¤HWY 60

§̈¦I 605

Azusa Ave.

Rosem

ead Blvd.

S. Garfield Ave.

Huntington Dr.

South El Monte Operable Unit

Area 3 Operable Unit

El Monte Operable Unit

Baldwin Park Operable Unit

Puente Valley Operable Unit

Whittier Narrows Operable UnitCentral Basin

San Gabriel Basin Contamination

Dams

Major Roadways

Groundwater Basin

2008 VOC ContaminationDetection to MCL

MCL to 10 X MCL

10 X MCL to 20 X MCL



> 1000 X MCL

±

San Gabriel BasinWater Quality Authority

Updated 01/31/2012

ðð$

$ð

ð

ð$

ðð

ð$ $

PECK

RD

§̈¦I 10

§̈¦I 605

§̈¦I 210

IRW

IND

ALE

AV

W BADILLO ST

RAMONA BLVDS G

LENDORA AV

E VALLEY BLVD

VIN

CE

NT AV

VCWD Subarea 1 Treatment FacilityCompleted Construction in 20047,800 gpmUse: Potable

LPVCWD Treatment FacilityCompleted Construction in 20002,500 gpmUse: Potable

SGVWC Plant B6 Treatment FacilityCompleted Construction in 20047,800 gpmUse: Potable

CDWC Basset Wells Treatment FacilityCompleted Construction in 20025,000 gpmUse: Potable

SGVWC Plant B5 Treatment FacilityCompleted Construction in 20077,800 gpmUse: Potable

Updated 01/31/2012

-Figure 2-Prescribed Remedy

Baldwin ParkOperable Unit

Washes


MCL to 10 X MCL




> 1000 X MCL

Source:Ecology and Environment, Inc.San Gabriel Basin Database GISPrepared for EPA 2011

Pipeline

Remedial Extraction Well

Treatment Plant

A#*

´

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.20.15Miles

Updated 01/31/2012


South El Monte Operable Unit


Pipeline


Treatment Plant

A#*

ð$

$ð

ð

$ð

$

$

ð$

$ð

§̈¦10

§̈¦60

GARVEY AV

RUSH ST

N R

OS

EM

EA

D B

LVD

SAN

GA

BR

IEL

BLV

D

WA

LNU

T G

RO

VE

AV

SGVWC Plant G4Existing Well and Treatment Faciltiy1,200 gpmUse: Potable WQA Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Faciltiy

Existing Wells and Treatment100 gpmUse: Discharge

SGVWC Plant 8Existing Wells and Treatment Facility5,000 gpmUse: Potable

Monterey Park Well No. 15Existing Well and Pipeline2,500 gpmUse: Potable

Monterey Park Well No. 12Existing Well and Treatment Facility4,500 gpmUse: Potable

Monterey Park Well No. 5Existing Well and Treament Facility2,100 gpmUse: Potable

GSWC SG1 & SG2Existing Wells and Treatment Faciltiy2,200 gpmUse: Potable

Monterey Park Delta Pumping PlantExisting Wells and Treatment4,500 gpmUse: Potable

Washes


MCL to 10 X MCL




> 1000 X MCL

´

1,300 0 1,300650 Feet

Updated 01/31/2012


El Monte Operable Unit


Pipeline


Treatment Plant

Injection Well

A#*


ð

ð

ð

ð$

ð$

ð

ð

$

ð

ð

ð

ð

$

$

ð

ð

ð

ð

EN

CIN

ITA

AV

RO

SE

ME

AD

BLV

D

ARD

EN D

R

VALLEY BLVD

GIB

SO

N R

D

SHIR

LEY

AV

RALPH ST

GUESS ST

STR

AN

G A

V

LOWER AZUSA RD

TEM

PLE

CIT

Y B

LVD

RIO

HO

ND

O A

V

BALD

WIN

AV

aaa

S

Washes


MCL to 10 X MCL




> 1000 X MCL

´

1,100 0 1,100550 Feet

GSWC/WSPSDExisting Wells and Treatment2,250 gpmUse: Potable

ARMWDExisting Wells and Treatment100 gpmUse: Potable

WSPSD Westside Shallow RemedyExisting Wells, Pipeline and Treament200 gpmUse: Discharge

ESPSD Eastside Shallow RemedyProposed Wells, Pipeline and Treatment200 gpmUse: Re-injection

ESPSD/City of El MonteProposed Wells, Pipeline and Treament600 gpmUse; Potable

Updated 01/31/2012


Whittier NarrowsOperable Unit


Pipeline


Treatment Plant

A#*


Whittier Narrows Dam

ðð

ðð

ð

ð

ð

$ DURFEE AV

ROSE

MEA

D BL

VD

Dams


MCL to 10 X MCL




> 1000 X MCL

´EPA Whittier Narrows Remedy12,000 gpmUse: Recharge/Potable

775 0 775387.5 Feet

Updated 01/31/2012


Puente ValleyOperable Unit


Shallow Zone Remedy Pipeline

Intermediate Zone Remedy Pipeline

SZ Remedial Extraction Well

IZ Remedial Extraction Well

Treatment Plant#*

r

r

ð

ð

ð

ð

$

PROCTOR AV

E VALLEY BLVD

E TEMPLE AV

N ORANGE AV

N SUNSET A

V

N CALIF

ORNIA AV

8TH AV

9TH AV

S 7TH AV

ð

ð

E NELSON AV

#Y#Y

#Y

$

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#YN EVA

NWOOD AV

#Y

E AMAR RD HA

Washes


MCL to 10 X MCL




> 1000 X MCL

´

860 0 860430 Feet

Updated 01/31/2012


Area 3Operable Unit


EPA Installed Monitoring Welll

Treatment Plant#*^

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

$

ÊÚ

$

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚ

E MAIN ST

W MISSION RD

E ALHAMBRA RD

N GRANAD

A AV

N CHAPEL AV

E LAS TUNAS DR

N SA

NTA

AN

ITA

ST

E MISSION DR

N A

TLA

NT

IC B

LVD

City of Alhambra Phase IIVOC Treatment Plant7,000 gpmUse: Potable

City of Alhambra Phase IVOC Treatment Plant1,650 gpmUse: Potable


MCL to 10 X MCL




> 1000 X MCL

´

2,100 0 2,1001,050 Feet

Raymond Basin

Chin

o Ba

sin

San Gabriel BasinWater Quality Authority

Updated 01/31/2012

"8

"8"8"8 "8

"8"8

"8

"8

"8"8

"8"8"8

"8

$$$

$ $

$

$$$$

$ $

$$

$$

$$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

HUNTINGTON DR

I 210

I 10

HWY 60

RO

SEM

EAD

BLV

D

S G

ARFI

ELD

AV

I 605

AZU

SA A

V

Central Basin

Dams

Major Roadways

Groundwater Basin


MCL to 10 X MCL




> 1000 X MCL

±

!.#

Treatment Facilities PotentiallyCovered Under SuperfundTreatment Facilities NotCovered Under Superfund

Superfund vs. Nonsuperfund Projects-FIGURE 8-


Page 53

FIGURE 9 – The number of treatment plants operating in the Basin.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 Treatment Plants Online


Page 54

FIGURE 10 – The total amount of water treated and contaminants removed in the Basin. WQA considers the overall impact of the combined cleanup projects. This chart demonstrates how much contaminant mass has been removed from the Basin and how much treated water the projects have made available for beneficial use.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

CON

TAM

INAN

TS R

EMO

VED

(LBS

)

TREA

TED

WAT

ER

(ACR

E-FE

ET)

CONTAMINANTS REMOVED &

WATER TREATED

Treated Water

Contaminants

AGENDA SUBMITTAL




Subject: IRWMP Memorandum of Understanding

Background and Discussion WQA is a member of the Greater Los Angeles County Region Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) Leadership Committee. The committee operates under an existing IRWMP memorandum of understanding (MOU) that expires and the end of 2012. The parties are proposing to extend the term of the agreement 4 additional years through December 2016. No other changes are proposed at this time. One of the purposes of the MOU is the formation of a Regional Water Management Group. This is a requirement of parties seeking IRWMP funding from the Department of Water Resources. The MOU also indicates that the parties will create and adopt an IRWMP for the Greater L.A. Region. Parties to the MOU also agree to solicit funding for implementation of the IRWMP, to share water resources management information and to coordinate projects and programs. Staff is recommending that WQA continue participating in the IRWMP process and approve the MOU for another 4 years. Recommendation / Proposed Action The Administrative/Finance Committee recommends approval of the proposed IRWMP MOU. Attachments Existing IRWMP Memorandum of Understanding

Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan2008 Regional Water Management Group MOU

Organization Signature TitleDate of

execution

Central Basin Municipal Water DistrictArt Aguilar General Manager 08/14/2008

City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation(Watershed Protection Division)

Cynthia M. RuizPresident, Board ofPublic Works

7/18/2008

City of MalibuJim Thorsen City Manager 07/08/2008

County Sanitation District No. 2 ofLos Angeles County

Leonis C. MalburgChairperson, Board ofDirectors

06/25/2008

Las Virgenes Municipal Water DistrictJohn R. Mundy General Manager 10/30/2008

Los Angeles & San Gabriel RiversWatershed Council

Nancy L.C. Steele Executive Director 06/02/2008

Los Angeles County Flood Control DistrictDean Efstathiou Acting Chief Engineer 10/21/2008

Los Angeles Department of Water and PowerDavid H. Nahai

Chief Executive Officer& General Manager

7/29/2008

Main San Gabriel Basin WatermasterCarol Williams Executive Officer 08/12/2008

Metropolitan Water DistrictJeffrey Kightlinger General Manager 06/02/2008

Raymond Basin Management BoardTony Zampiello Watermaster 09/24/2008

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality AuthorityGrace J. Kast Executive Director 06/17/2008

Santa Monica Bay Restoration CommissionShelly Luce Executive Director 10/17/2008

Water Conservation AuthorityBelinda Faustinos Executive Officer 11/05/2008

Water Replenishment District of SouthernCalifornia

Robb Whitaker General Manager 09/15/2008

West Basin Municipal Water DistrictRichard Nagel General Manager 06/25/2008

1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING2 FOR3 INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND4 IMPLEMENTATION56 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into by and among7 members of the Greater Los Angeles County Region Integrated Regional Water8 Management Plan Leadership Committee for the purpose of developing, administering,9 updating and implementing an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the

10 Greater Los Angeles County Region. Signatories to this MOU shall hereinafter be11 referred to individually as "Party" or collectively as "Parties".1213 RECITALS1415 WHEREAS, it is in the interests of the Parties, and the region served by the Parties, that16 the water resources the Parties share in common are responsibly managed, protected, and17 conserved to the extent feasible; and,1819 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to develop, administer, update and implement an20 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as "IRWMP") for21 the Greater Los Angeles County Region (defined in Exhibit A), in accordance with the22 Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002, Division 6, Part 2.2 of the23 California Water Code as such Act may be amended hereafter.2425 NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed as follows:2627 SECTION 1: PURPOSES AND GOALS2829 1.1 Purposes and Goals:3031 The Parties desire to coordinate and share information concerning water resources32 management planning programs and projects and other information for grant funding and33 IRWMP implementation, and to improve and maintain overall communication among the34 Parties. It is anticipated that coordination and information sharing among the Parties will35 assist the agencies in achieving their respective missions and contribute to the overall36 well-being of the region. It is expected that all parties will cooperate and coordinate with37 one another in order to achieve the goals written above.383940 SECTION 2: JOINT AGENCY PLANNING FOR PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS4142 2.1 Projects and Programs:4344 It is the intent of the Parties that they coordinate and collaborate to develop and45 implement projects and programs. Such coordination can achieve greater benefits than

46 single purpose projects. Applicable projects and programs include, but are not limited to,47 the following:4849 2.1.1 An IRWMP for the Greater Los Angeles County Region.5051 2.1.2 Solicitation of external funding for implementation of the IRWMP for the52 Greater Los Angeles County Region.5354 2.2 Formation of Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) and Adoption of the55 IRWMP:5657 2.2.1 Leadership Committee signatories that execute this MOU shall constitute58 the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) pursuant to Cal. Water Code59 section 10537. The RWMG shall facilitate the development and implementation60 of the Greater Los Angeles County Region IRWMP. Adoption of the IRWMP61 for the Greater Los Angeles County Region in accordance with the Integrated62 Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 requires a simple majority63 vote of the RWMG.6465 2.2.2 The Regional Water Management Group established by execution of this66 MOU will serve as the Regional Water Management Group for the Greater Los67 Angeles County Region IRWMP.6869 2.3 Operations of the RWMG7071 2.3.1 The Parties acknowledge that Operating Guidelines will be adopted and72 revised by the RWMG and will be the basis for the decision-making process.7374 2.4 Endorsement by other parties7576 2.4.1 Other parties are encouraged to endorse this MOU to demonstrate support77 for the Greater Los Angeles County IRWMP. Such endorsements do not obligate78 said parties beyond the demonstration of support for regional water management79 cooperation. Said parties will not be members of the RWMG.8081 SECTION 3: GENERAL PROVISIONS8283 3.1 Term: This MOU shall become effective on the date first written above and shall84 expire on December 31' 2012 or upon its replacement by the adoption of a subsequent85 MOU, Agreement, or Joint Powers Authority Agreement, or unless earlier terminated by86 mutual written agreement of a majority of the Parties. Any Party may terminate its87 participation in this MOU upon 60 days' written notice to the remaining Parties.8889 3.2 Construction of Terms: This MOU is for the sole benefit of the Parties and shall not90 be construed as granting rights to any person other than the Parties or imposing91 obligations on a Party to any person other than another Party.

9293 3.3 Good Faith: Each Party shall use its best efforts and work wholeheartedly and in good94 faith for the expeditious completion of the purposes and goals of this MOU and the95 satisfactory performance of its terms.9697 3.4 Governing Law: This MOU is made under and shall be governed by the laws of the98 State of California.99

100 3.5 Execution: This MOU may be executed in counterparts and the signed counterparts101 shall constitute a single instrument. The signatories to this MOU represent that they have102 the authority to bind their respective Party to this MOU.103104 3.6 Succession: Successor appointees shall sign this MOU prior to being seated on the105 Leadership Committee.106107 3.7 Administration: The Chair of the Leadership Committee will be responsible for the108 ongoing administration of the MOU.109110 3.8 Financial Commitment: Neither the signing of this MOU nor the adoption by the111 governing boards of the Parties commits any Party to any financial obligation.112113 3.9 Severability: The provisions of this MOU shall be deemed severable, and the114 invalidity, illegality or unenforceability of any provision of this MOU shall not affect the115 validity or enforceability of any other provisions. In the event any provision of this MOU116 is found to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the Parties shall endeavor to modify that117 clause in a manner which gives effect to the intent of the Parties in entering into this118 MOU.119120 3.10 Effective Date: This MOU shall take effect upon signature or counter-signature of a121 majority of the Parties. Each additional Party shall have up to 60 days after the effective122 date to sign the MOU.

Greater Los Angeles County Region Watersheds

Greater Los Angeles County Sub-Regions

Lower San Gabrieland Lower-Los +.7Angeles Rivers

NorthSanta Monica

Bay 41,?4,4

134

135136137

138

123124 EXHIBIT A125 Description of the Greater Los Angeles County Region IRWMP (Region)126127 The Region, an area of approximately 2,058 square miles, is located in coastal southern128 California. The Region contains portions of four counties; Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura,129 and San Bernardino. The region encompasses the following watersheds: The Los Angeles130 River watershed, the San Gabriel River watershed, the Santa Monica Bay watershed, and131 the Dominguez Channel watershed. The region is organized into five sub-regions: the132 Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers, the North Santa Monica Bay, the South Bay,133 the Upper Los Angeles River, and the Upper San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo.

141 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,thePARTIEShaveexecutedthisMemorandum of142 Understanding as of the dates opposite their respective signatures.143144

146 Date: ,k) /Le(7 ZOOF145

Grace J. KasExecutive D rectorSan Gabriel(Basin Water Quality Authority

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Guidelines for the Operation of the Regional Water Management Group and its

11 Steering Committees for the Greater Los Angeles County Region

12 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

13 April 200814

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43 TABLE OF CONTENTS

44

45 I. Introduction

46 II. Sub-regional Steering Committees

47 a. Formation

48 b. Roles and Responsibilities

49 III. Leadership Committee

50 a. Formation


52 IV. Guidelines for Transparency

53 V. Guidelines for Funding Contributions

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

IRWM Operating Guidelines- April 2008 2

68

69 I. Introduction70

71 The intent of the Integrated Regional Water Management program is to encourage integrated regional

72 strategies for the management of water resources, and to provide funding, through competitive grants, for

73 projects that protect communities from drought, improve water reliability, protect and improve water quality,

74 and improve local water security by reducing dependence on imported water.

75 The decision-making structure for the Greater Los Angeles Region IRWMP includes five sub-regional

76 Steering Committees and a regional Leadership Committee. Each Steering Committee consists of

77 representatives from local agencies and organizations involved in water management and related areas.

78 The Leadership Committee consists of: the Chair and Vice-Chair of each Steering Committee; the Chief

79 Engineer or another representative from the LA County Flood Control District; and five Water Management

80 Area representatives, one for each water management area. The five Water Management Areas are

81 surface water, groundwater, sanitation, stormwater and open space.

82

83 II. Sub-Regional Steering Committees

84

85 Each of the five sub-regions of the Region's IRWM planning area, as identified on Exhibit A, will be guided

86 by a Steering Committee consisting of representatives of agencies or organizations (entity(ies)) involved in

87 local water management and related areas. To the extent feasible, the formation and composition of each

88 Steering Committee will be consistent with the following:

89

90 a. Formation

91

92 1. The entities will represent at least one of the following Water Management Areas: groundwater, surface

93 water, storm water management/water quality, sanitation, and habitat/open space/recreational access.

94

95 2. Steering Committees should strive to include at least one representative organization for each of the

96 Water Management Areas and appropriate city representation.

97

98 3. Each entity will designate a member(s) and alternate to represent it on the Steering Committee.

99

100 4. It is desirable, but not required, that the member and alternate designated by each entity should be an

101 executive level representative. Each member will serve at the pleasure of the appointing entity.

102

103 5. Each entity must adopt or endorse, as appropriate, the Memorandum of Understanding in order to

104 participate as a voting member of the Steering Committee. Endorsement shall be accomplished by providing


105 a resolution of support of the Memorandum of Understanding from the authorized representative of the

106 entity.

107

108 6. Each Steering Committee member shall have one vote. The presence of a simple majority of the Steering

109 Committee members at any meeting of the Steering Committee shall constitute a quorum for the purposes

110 of conducting business. The affirmative vote of a quorum of the Steering Committee members is required for

111 all decisions and recommendations of the Steering Committee.

112

113 7. The members of the Steering Committee will elect from among themselves a Chair of the Steering

114 Committee. The Chair will serve at the pleasure of the Steering Committee and will serve on the Leadership

115 Committee.

116

117 8. The members of the Steering Committee will elect from among themselves a Vice-Chair to preside over

118 meetings of the Steering Committee in the absence of the Chair. The Vice-Chair will serve at the pleasure

119 of the Steering Committee and will serve on the Leadership Committee.

120

121 9. Each Steering Committee will select an alternate for the Chair to serve on the Leadership Committee with

122 voting rights in his/her absence and an alternate for the Vice-Chair to serve on the Leadership Committee

123 with voting rights in his/her absence. The selection process for the alternates will be established by each

124 Steering Committee.

125

126 10. The Steering Committee will nominate one representative for each Water Management Area, without

127 geographic consideration, for consideration to serve on the Leadership Committee.

128

129 11. Each Steering Committee may, as appropriate, include Ex-Officio members.

130

131 12. Entities wishing to join a Steering Committee shall submit a written request to the Steering Committee

132 Chair. The written request will be presented to the Steering Committee for deliberation and a vote. A

133 majority vote of the Steering Committee is required to add members.

134

135 13. The Steering Committee may establish a membership size limitation.

136

137 14. A Steering Committee may request a participating entity replace their representative for failure to

138 participate.

139

140 15. In addition to the above, individual Steering Committees may adopt rules for their formation and

141 participation.


142


144

145 The Steering Committees will have the following roles and responsibilities:

146

147 1. Represent the interests of the sub-region.

148

149 2. Meet monthly or as required to accomplish their purpose in developing the IRWM Plan, evaluating

150 proposed projects and conducting necessary business. The Steering Committee Chair may call

151 meetings as needed.

152

153 3. Establish, as necessary, sub-committees charged with studying, investigating and soliciting information

154 that will advance the development, implementation and administration of the Plan and/or other areas of

155 business. Sub-committees will be subject to the oversight of the Steering Committee and no

156 recommendation or finding of a sub-committee will be binding upon the Steering Committee. Sub-committee

157 size and composition will be determined by the Steering Committee, and sub-committee members may be

158 selected from any representative of any Steering Committee agency or organization, or any appropriate

159 stakeholder.

160

161 4. Identify reliable and long-term funding for the implementation of the Plan and the projects described in

162 the Plan from sources, including local, state and federal funding, and pursue funds from these sources.

163 Steering committee members will also lend individual support to efforts to apply for and procure such funds,

164 to the extent that each entity is able. Steering Committee members may also choose to contribute funds to

165 support any and all phases of the work to be performed for development and implementation of the Plan.

166

167 5. Prepare periodic reports to its member agencies, organizations and stakeholders describing the progress

168 of the development, implementation and administration of the Plan.

169

170 6. Share to the extent not otherwise prohibited by law, privilege, or previous lawful agreement, all

171 information required to develop, prepare, implement and administer and submit documents for the Plan,

172 including monitoring data, Computer Assisted Drawing and Design (CADD) and Geographic Information

173 Systems (GIS) or other electronic data. Such sharing shall be subject to any applicable license agreements

174 or other restrictions. All data shared among the entities shall be provided "as is" and without warranties as to

175 accuracy or as to any other characteristics, whether expressed or implied. The intent of this data-sharing

176 provision is to facilitate the development, implementation and administration of the Plan, and not to authorize

177 use of this data for tasks unrelated to the Plan, unless deemed appropriate by the Steering Committee.

178


179 7. Adopt fiscal procedures as necessary to administer funds that may be received for purposes of

180 development, administration and/or implementation of the Plan.

181

182 8. To the extent feasible, make all meetings of the Steering Committee open to the public and post meeting

183 notices on a designated website.

184

185 9. Provide outreach to local entities and communities to ensure adequate input from all stakeholders.

186

187 10. Maintain a sub-regional prioritized project list and ensure that the Leadership Committee's master list of

188 prioritized projects is current.

189

190 11. Maintain a list of sub-regional goals and priorities as appropriate.

191

192 12. Track progress on sub-regional goals and planning targets (where applicable).

193

194 13. Identify and sponsor sub-regional planning studies as needed.

195

196 14. Work with the Leadership Committee to update and implement the plan as required.

197

198 15. Participate in the Leadership Committee.

199

200 In. Leadership Committee

201

202 a. Formation203

204 1. The Leadership Committee will serve as the Regional Water Management Group for the Region. Once

205 comprised, the Leadership Committee will consist of the Chief Engineer of the Los Angeles County Flood

206 Control District or his/her designee, and the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of each of the five Sub-regional Steering

207 Committees, and five additional members representing each of five Water Management Areas. An Interim

208 Leadership Committee, comprised of the Chair of the Leadership Committee and the Chairs and Vice-Chairs

209 of the five sugregional steering committees, will elect the Water Management Area Representatives from

210 the nominees submitted by the Steering Committees, with one representative selected from each Steering

211 Committee's list of nominees. Water Management Area representatives must meet the minimum

212 qualifications set forth in Attachment A. Once the Water Management Area representatives are added to

213 the Interim Leadership Committee, the body shall constitute the Leadership Committee.

214


215 2. The five Water Management Areas are surface water, groundwater, sanitation, stormwater and open

216 space. Each Water Management Area representative will recommend an alternate to serve on the

217 Leadership Committee in his/her absence. The alternate must be approved by the Leadership Committee

218 and must meet the minimum qualifications for Water Management Area Representatives set forth in

219 Attachment A.

220

221 3. The Chief Engineer of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District or his/her designee will serve as

222 Chair of the Leadership Committee, at the pleasure of the Leadership Committee.

223

224 4. The Leadership Committee will elect an alternate (voting member) as Vice Chair. The Vice Chair will

225 serve at the pleasure of the Leadership Committee in the absence of the Chair.

226

227 5. All Leadership Committee member terms will be reviewed every 3 years on a staggered basis, by each

228 sub-region for the Chair and Vice-Chair positions, as illustrated in the table below. The Chair of the

229 Leadership Committee and Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Steering Committees will review the Water

230 Management Area positions every 3 years as illustrated in the table below. Leadership Committee

231 members may serve consecutive terms. The Water Management Area position will rotate its representation

232 to a different sub-region every 3 years. Each Steering Committee will nominate a representative to fill the

233 Water Management Area position which will be reviewed by the 11 members of the Interim Leadership

234 Committee (Chairs, Vice-Chairs, and Leadership Committee Chair) for consideration and appointment.

235

Position Year

07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Chair X X X etc

Vice Chair X X X etc

WMA etc

Surface Water X X X etc

Sanitation X X X etc

Groundwater X X X etc

Stormwater X X X etc

Open Space X X X etc

236

237


238 6. Each entity serving on the Leadership Committee members must sign the Memorandum of

239 Understanding. Any Leadership Committee member that withdraws from the Leadership

240 Committee/Regional Water Management Group in writing or consistently fails to participate (as deemed by

241 majority decree of the Leadership Committee) effectively withdraws their agency from the MOU.

242

243 7. The presence of a simple majority of the Leadership Committee members at any meeting of the

244 Leadership Committee will constitute a quorum for the purposes of conducting business. The affirmative

245 vote of a quorum of the Leadership Committee is required for all decisions and recommendations of the

246 Leadership Committee.

247

248 8. The Leadership Committee may include Ex-Officio members.

249


251

252 The Leadership Committee will have the following roles and responsibilities:

253

254 1. Form Subcommittees and work groups as necessary to achieve the objectives of the IRWMP.

255

256 2. Meet monthly or as required to accomplish its purpose in developing the IRWM Plan and conduct

257 necessary business. The Leadership Committee Chair may call meetings as needed.

258

259 3. Establish, as necessary, subcommittees charged with studying, investigating and soliciting information

260 that will advance the development, administration, and implementation of the Plan. The subcommittees will

261 be subject to the oversight of the Leadership Committee and no recommendation or finding of a

262 subcommittee will be binding upon the Leadership Committee. Sub-committee size and composition will be

263 determined by the Leadership Committee, and Subcommittee members may be selected from any

264 representative of the various Steering Committee entities or any appropriate stakeholder.

265

266 4. Identify and pursue funding for the development and administration of the Plan. The Leadership

267 Committee will be responsible for determining the amount of contributions necessary for administration of

268 the plan. Leadership Committee representatives will communicate to their respective Steering Committees

269 the amount of funding needed and will pursue commitments for contributions from Steering Committee

270 members and other stakeholders.

271

272 5. Identify reliable and long-term funding for the implementation of the Plan and the projects described in the

273 Plan from sources including local, state and federal, and pursue funds from these sources.

274


275 6. Prepare periodic reports for the Steering Committees and stakeholders describing the progress of the

276 development, administration and implementation of the Plan.

277

278 7. To share to the extent not otherwise prohibited by law, privilege, or previous lawful agreement, all

279 information required to develop, prepare, implement and administer and submit documents for the Plan,

280 including monitoring data, Computer Assisted Drawing and Design (CADD) and Geographic Information

281 Systems (GIS) or other electronic data. Such sharing shall be subject to any applicable license agreements

282 or other restrictions. All data shared among the parties shall be provided "as is" and without warranties as to

283 accuracy or as to any other characteristics, whether expressed or implied. The intent of this data-

284 sharing provision is to facilitate the development, implementation and administration of the Plan, and not to

285 authorize use of this data for tasks unrelated to the Plan, unless deemed appropriate by the Leadership

286 Committee.

287

288 8. Adopt as necessary fiscal procedures to administer funds that may be received for purposes of

289 development, administration and/or implementation of the Plan.

290

291 9. Establish a project evaluation framework that is consistent across the Region for the purpose of

292 quantifying project benefits to allow for the categorization and prioritization of projects based on the Water

293 Management Areas and consistent with the Plan.

294

295 10. Facilitate the adoption of the Plan by those entities within the Region with responsibility for one or more

296 Water Management Areas.

297

298 11. To the extent feasible, make all meetings of the Leadership Committee open to the public and post

299 meeting notices on a designated website.

300

301 12. Provide regional oversight to the Greater Los Angeles County Region IRWMP.

302

303 13. Track regional progress towards the Greater Los Angeles County Region IRWMP targets.

304

305 14. Act as liaison between the State and the Steering Committees.

306

307 15. Represent the Region's needs to the State.

308

309 16. Provide a balance for sub-regional interests.

310

311 17. Provide regional outreach related to the Greater Los Angeles County Region IRWMP.


312

313 18. Periodically update the Greater Los Angeles County Region IRWMP.

314

315 19. Serve as the Regional Water Management Group in accordance with the Integrated Regional Water

316 Management Planning Act of 2002, Division 6, Chapter 2.2 of the California Water Code, as amended.

317

318

319

320 IV. Guidelines for Transparency321

322 The following guidelines have been established to enable participation in the planning effort by all

323 stakeholders and to ensure transparency in decision-making at the Leadership Committee:

324

325 1. The Leadership Committee will prepare and circulate agendas in advance of their meetings. The Steering

326 Committees will have an opportunity to discuss those agendas prior to the Leadership Committee meetings

327 where possible.

328

329 2. Minutes from Leadership Committee meetings will be posted on the website and distributed to

330 stakeholders.

331

332 3. Key action items of the Leadership Committee will be submitted in a simple board letter format such that

333 subsequent interested parties can review and understand the recommendations and actions.

334

335 VI. Guidelines for Funding Contributions336

337 1. The Leadership Committee will determine the budget for ongoing IRWMP operations (funding target).

338 Such operations include but are not limited to consultant support, administrative expenses, special

339 studies, direct costs, etc.

340 2. The budget shall be determined for multiple years so as to provide participating entities planning

341 information for their own budgetary purposes.

342 3. All Steering Committees are expected to contribute equally to the funding target. The Chair and Vice

343 Chair of each Steering Committee will be responsible for outreach to Steering Committee members and

344 stakeholders in order to obtain the necessary contributions.

345 4. All Leadership Committee and Steering Committee members will be expected to contribute towards the

346 funding target established by the Leadership Committee based on their ability to pay. Leadership

347 Committee and Steering Committee members are also expected to assist in outreaching to local entities

348 for funding contributions.


349 5. If extenuating circumstances prevent a Steering Committee from raising its portion of the funding target,

350 the Chair and Vice Chair of the Steering Committee may appeal to the Leadership Committee for an

351 exception to the funding target.

352 6. The Leadership Committee and Steering Committees will seek planning grants and other sources of

353 funding as available to offset the amount of Steering Committee member contributions or contributions

354 from other entities.


355 Attachment A356 Water Management Area Minimum Qualifications357

Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management RegionWater Management Area (WMA) Representation Minimum Requirements

WMA MinimumYears OfExperience

Description

Groundwater Five + • Experience in one of the following groundwater areas:remediation, supply, management and/or storage.

• Educational background or equivalent work experience inengineering, natural sciences, land use management,conservation, or other water resource-related field.

• Must not have competing or conflicting groundwater interestswithin or outside of the Greater L.A. Region.

Open Space Five + • Experience with habitat, open space and/or recreational issues ata regional level (i.e. across municipal jurisdictions and watershedboundaries).

• Educational background or equivalent work experience in naturalsciences, land use management, conservation, or other waterresource-related field.

• Familiar with the agencies and organizations involved inhabitat/open space issues in the LA Region who are likely to beproject proponents, land owners or permitters of projects.

Sanitation Five + • Experience in local or regional agency that provides wastewatercollection, treatment, recycling and/or disposal services.

• Education background and work experience in science,engineering, waste management or related fields.

Stormwater Five + - Experience in overseeing/managing stormwater pollutionabatement projects and knowledge in stormwater programs inmulti-watersheds as defined in the Greater Los Angeles RegionIRWMP.

• Educational background or work experience in engineering,environmental science, biology, chemistry, toxicology,microbiology, urban planning or closely related field.• Sound knowledge of NPDES Stormwater Permit and TMDLissues as related to the region.• Experience in taking a major role in regional NPDES stormwaterpermit and TMDL compliance efforts involving multiple jurisdictions.• Ability to provide a regional perspective on stormwater and waterquality issues.

SurfaceWater

Five + • Expertise in the planning, design and construction, financing, andoperations of water works facilities which includes storage


reservoirs, transmission and distribution systems, pumping plants,water treatment, water conservation, system optimizationparticularly as it effects power usage.

- Education background or work experience in engineering, urbanplanning, environmental studies or related fields.

•Sound knowledge of existing and emerging regulations as well asenvironmental matters and familiarity with California water law andregulations.

- Knowledgeable of the roles of federal, state and localgovernmental agencies involved in either the regulation of or theoperation of waters supply facilities as well as familiarity with keynongovernmental agencies that influence the operations of watersystems.

•Experience in the acquisition of water rights.358359

General Minimum Qualifications for all WMA Representatives- Familiar with the Region's IRWMP, its decision making structure, the committee members, goalsand targets, and specific issues, challenges and potential solutions related to the specific WMAon a regional scale.

•Must be able to represent regional Interests in the Greater Los Angeles County Region.

•Must be able to attend and participate in Leadership Committee meetings.360361


MINUTES OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY

ENGINEERING COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 AT 1:00 P.M.

AT WQA HEADQUARTERS Members Present: Jim Byerrum

John Leung Members Absent: Bob Kuhn Watermaster Liaison: Chet Anderson Staff Present: Randy Schoellerman Dan Colby Stephanie Moreno Visitors: Dan Arrighi, San Gabriel Valley Water Company Lenet Pacheco, Valley County Water District Jonathan Contreras, Valley County Water District Steve Johnson, Stetson Engineers, Inc. Sandy Marshall, Carbon Activated Discussion Regarding Notice of Exemption for the Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility Mr. Schoellerman reminded the committee that WQA’s Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility (WSGRF) remains off-line due to concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) in excess of the discharge permit limitations. He stated that staff has identified all of the necessary upgrades to treat TDS and comply with all discharge requirements. He reported that the cost of the upgrades have also been included into the recent Cleanup and Abatement Account (CAA) grant application. He indicated that the CAA grant application also requires that projects comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. He noted that the proposed addition of ion exchange treatment is a minor alteration of the existing facility and would qualify for a Notice of Exemption (NOE) Upon further discussion the committee recommended that staff bring the NOE to the Board for approval. Discussion Regarding $15K Task Order for Stetson Engineers Related to Discharge Permit Activities Mr. Schoellerman provided the committee an update of WQA’s recent discharge permit activities. He reported that Stetson Engineers (Stetson) have been working under an existing task orders totaling $40K that were expected to covered the required discharge permit activities through August. He indicated that work on the discharge permit had entered a new phase and that an additional task order for Stetson’s activities would be appropriate. Upon further discussion the committee recommended that staff bring the task order for Stetson Engineers to the Board for approval.

Project Updates (action/information item): Area 3 OU: Mr. Schoellerman reported that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is in the process of finalizing the Feasibility Study for Area3. BPOU: Mr. Schoellerman reported that Covina Irrigating Company is moving forward on the Baldwin Wells Pumping Plant and will be utilizing existing WQA federal funds allocated to the project while the Proposition 84 funding agreement is being developed. EMOU: Mr. Schoellerman reported that the Westside Shallow Zone Remedy has been constructed and is currently operational. He stated that the dedication ceremony is in the planning stage. SEMOU: Mr. Schoellerman reported that the monthly routine sampling of the WSGRF is being scheduled to see what the levels of TDS are and if the treatment facility can be put back on-line prior to the required upgrades. WNOU: Mr. Schoellerman reported that San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) was selected by USEPA and DTSC to take over the operations of the Whittier Narrows Operable Unit remedy from the city of Whittier. He stated that the USEPA will construct all required infrastructure prior to turning over control to DTSC next year. Executive Director’s Report None.

AGENDA SUBMITTAL




Subject: Notice of Exemption for the Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility

Background The Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility (WSGRF) is a small treatment system designed to remove shallow groundwater contamination in a portion of the South El Monte Operable Unit. The WSGRF consists of six groundwater extraction wells that pump contaminated groundwater to a small treatment facility consisting of ultraviolet light and carbon filtration technologies. The treated groundwater is then discharged to the adjacent Rio Hondo channel under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The NPDES permit dictates the quality of the water allowed to be discharged to the channel. One of the items monitored for the NPDES permit is Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). This reading cannot exceed 750 mg/l. On average the normal TDS for the WSGRF has been approximately 500 mg/l. However, on a few occasions over the past five years the TDS spiked higher than the 750 mg/l limitation and forced shutdowns of the system until levels retreated. To assure that the TDS levels in the discharge remain below the permitted levels on a consistent basis staff is proposing to add an ion exchange technology to the existing treatment system. The ion exchange system would include two steel vessels approximately 12 ft. tall and 4 ft. wide which are similar to the two existing carbon vessels on site. Each vessel would hold 1,000 lbs. of disposable resin and be placed on a 6 ft. x 12 ft. x 0.5 ft. concrete foundation. Appropriate piping, valves and meters would be added in a manner that would allow for maximum operational flexibility and integration with the existing system.

Discussion The California Environmental Quality Act allows an exemption for minor alterations to existing facilities. In this situation the proposed additions to the WSGRF will not alter the primary function of the treatment facility or expand its capacity and use. In addition, it is a minor cleanup action designed to remove 1,4 dioxane and other contaminants from the groundwater. Therefore, the proposed additions qualify for an exemption under CEQA and a Notice of Exemption (NOE) and corresponding resolution were prepared for the Board to approve. Following Board approval the NOE will be filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk. Recommendation / Proposed Action The Engineering Committee and staff recommend approval of the project and the filing of a Notice of Exemption for proposed additions to the Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility. Attachments

1) Notice of Exemption 2) Resolution 12-007, A Resolution of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority

Concerning A Notice of Exemption and Approval for Alterations to the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility

DRAFT - Notice of Exemption

To: [x] County Clerk County of Los Angeles [ ] State Clearinghouse From: San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority 1720 West Cameron Ave., Suite 100 West Covina, CA 91790 Project Title/File No.: Whitmore Street Groundwater Remediation Facility Project Location: The project is located at 9401 Whitmore Street in the City of El Monte Project Description: The Main San Gabriel Basin provides drinking water for over a million residents. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) contamination was discovered in several areas during the late 1970s. In 1984, the San Gabriel Valley was placed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List (Superfund). The South El Monte Operable Unit (SEMOU) is one of the areas requiring cleanup under the Superfund laws. The northeastern portion of the SEMOU is highly contaminated with a 1,4-Dioxane and VOC contamination plume in the shallow zone aquifer. The original Whitmore Street project was approved and began operating in 2006. This project (Project) involves minor alterations to the existing treatment system. The Whitmore Street project is a hydraulic containment and groundwater treatment system currently being operated at 9401 East Whitmore Street in El Monte, California. The system consists of six extraction wells and an advanced oxidation (A0) unit to destroy 1,4 dioxane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The effluent from AO unit is polished in two liquid-phase granular activated carbon vessels, operating in series (lead/lag), prior to discharge to the adjacent Rio Hondo channel. Discharge of treated groundwater from the treatment system is regulated pursuant to California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region General Permit No. CAG994004 (Order No. R4-2008-0032) and Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI 9294. This Project would make minor alterations to the existing system by adding two 1,000 lb. steel vessels for ion exchange. Adding this treatment equipment will not increase the capacity of the treatment system/facility. The additional vessels would sit on a new 72 sq-ft concrete foundation. The 72 sq. ft. is much less than 50% of the overall square footage of the treatment facility. These minor alterations are necessary in order to reduce Total Dissolved Solids levels in the water in order to meet the discharge limits of the Authority’s NPDES permit.

Agency Carrying Out Project: San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority 1720 West Cameron Ave., Suite 100 West Covina, CA 91790 Contact Person: Randy Schoellerman, P.E. (626) 338-5555 Exemption Status: CEQA Guidelines §§15301, 15330 Reasons for Exemption: The project is exempt because 1) it consists of a minor alteration of an existing public treatment facility, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination regarding this exemption and 2) it is a minor cleanup action taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of a hazardous waste or substance.

None of the exceptions to categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 are applicable. Signature: Date: September ___, 2012 Printed Name: Randy Schoellerman, P.E. Title: Assistant Executive Director/Senior Engineer Telephone: (626) 338-5555 E-mail [email protected] 4846-7509-1728, v. 1

DRAFT

RESOLUTION NO. 12-007

A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY

CONCERNING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION AND APPROVAL FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY

AUTHORITY WHITMORE STREET GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION FACILITY

WHEREAS, in 1984, the San Gabriel Valley was placed on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) National Priorities List for environmental cleanup including an area designated as the South El Monte Operable Unit (“SEMOU”); WHEREAS, in 1993, the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (“Authority”) was formed by the California Legislative for the purpose of planning and financing groundwater extraction and treatment projects in the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin and to contribute to the basinwide remedial objectives established by state and federal agencies; WHEREAS, in 2005, the Authority conducted groundwater sampling of the shallow zone aquifer in the northern portion of the SEMOU and the sampling indicated the emergence of a contaminant plume consisting of 1,4-Dioxane and Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOCs”) within the shallow zone aquifer. If the contaminant plume were left unchecked it would migrate into contaminant free portions of the SEMOU aquifer; WHEREAS, in 2006, the Authority constructed and operates a 1,4-Dioxane and VOC Treatment Facility (the “Existing System”) to halt the migration of contamination and provide significant contaminant mass removal; WHEREAS, the proposed project (Project) would make minor alterations to the Existing System by adding two 1,000 lb. steel vessels for ion exchange equipment and miscellaneous piping. Adding this treatment equipment will not increase the capacity of the Existing System. The additional vessels would sit on a new 72 sq. ft concrete foundation. The 72 sq. ft. is much less than 50% of the overall square footage of the Existing System facility;

WHEREAS, the proposed Project is necessary in order to reduce Total Dissolved Solids levels in the water in order to meet the discharge limits of the Authority’s NPDES permit;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, on the basis of the Authority’s staff report:

Section 1: This Board of Directors of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority hereby finds and determines, that the proposed Project is necessary in order to reduce Total Dissolved Solids levels in the water in order to meet the discharge limits of the Authority’s NPDES permit;

Section 2: This Board further finds and determines that the proposed Project

qualifies for an exemption from CEQA because 1) it consists of a minor alteration of an existing public treatment facility, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the Authority’s determination regarding this exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15301) and 2) it is a minor cleanup action taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of a hazardous waste or substance (CEQA Guidelines §15330);

Section 3: This Board further finds and determines that none of the exceptions to

categorical exemptions listed in CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 are applicable; Section 4: The proposed Project as described in the Authority’s staff report is

approved; and

Section 5: The Executive Director and Authority staff is authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Exemption and to file it with the appropriate authorities as required under CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ________________, 2012. _____________________________________ LOUIE AGUIÑAGA, Chairman _____________________________________ BOB KUHN, Secretary

AGENDA SUBMITTAL




Subject: $15K Task Order for Stetson Engineers Related to Discharge Permit Activities

Background & Discussion Staff has been working on securing the acceptance of a general discharge permit that would facilitate the operation of groundwater treatment facilities. Stetson Engineers was retained to provide staff support in the development of the permit. Previous task orders issued to Stetson totaled $40K and were expected to cover their activities through August 2012. Staff is now recommending an additional task order for $15K to cover additional work through the end of the year. Recommendation / Proposed Action Approve $15K task order for Stetson Engineers for work on general discharge permit activities. Attachments None.

MINUTES OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY

LEGISLATIVE/PUBLIC INFORMATION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 AT 12:00 P.M. AT WQA HEADQUARTERS

Members Present: Ed Chavez, John Leung and Louie Aguiñaga Members Absent: None Liaison Member: Dan Arrighi Staff Present: Randy Schoellerman

Stephanie Moreno Dan Colby Mary Saenz Michelle Sanchez

Visitors: Mariana Lake, Valley County Water District Lenet Pacheco, Valley County Water District Chris Lancaster, Civic Publications Discussion Regarding Dedication Ceremony for the El Monte Operable Unit (EMOU) West Side Shallow Mr. Manning reported that the EMOU West Side Shallow parties would like to host a dedication ceremony for their project. He indicated that staff was looking for some direction on choosing a date for the ceremony. After detailed discussion, the committee recommended that staff try for a date in the month of October. Discussion Regarding Next Advertorial Mr. Lancaster reported that the next advertorial would be the Living Green section in the Los Angeles Times. Ms. Moreno reported that staff had considered using the EMOU dedication ceremony as the focal point of the ad. There was some discussion as to the timing of the ad and to be sensitive to it being too close to election time. Mr. Lancaster commented that he could schedule the ad to be published after the election. After detailed discussion the committee directed staff to use the EMOU dedication ceremony as the story for the ad and to have it run in November after Election Day.

Discussion Regarding the San Gabriel Valley Discovery Center Mr. Manning gave a brief background report on the Discovery Center. He reported that he felt it was important for all of the water agencies, including the WQA, to reaffirm that this Discovery Center was a good project and that the Discovery Center has developed a draft resolution for that purpose. He indicated that there was no financial obligation. After general discussion, the committee recommended that a resolution of support for the San Gabriel Valley River Discovery Center go to the full Board for adoption. Discussion Regarding the San Gabriel Valley Water Forum Mr. Manning reported that staff was scheduled to attend a meeting to discuss the Water Forum and was looking for comments and feedback that could be shared at the meeting and used for the planning of the next forum. There was some discussion on having a larger room for the first session to accommodate more seating. There was also some discussion on having breakout sessions where attendees could choose what topics they would like to hear about. Legislative Activities/Reports State Mr. Monares reported that AB467 was on the Governor’s desk waiting to be signed. Federal None. Executive Director’s Report Mr. Manning reported that Coro Southern California is having their 4th annual Water Conference & Luncheon on October 11, 2012. He indicated that he attended last year and thought it would be beneficial for WQA to sponsor the event this year. He noted that the level of sponsorship could be determined by the amount of Board members that would be interested in attending. After brief discussion, the committee directed staff to take a poll of the Board Members to see how many would like to attend the Coro Water Conference and sponsor the event according to the number of attendees and not to exceed the Silver Sponsor level.

AGENDA SUBMITTAL




Subject: Resolution 12-008 in support of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center

Recommendation / Proposed Action The Legislative Public Information Committee recommended that the Board Adopt Resolution 12-008 in Support of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center. Attachments Resolution 12-008, A Resolution Supporting the Funding, Development and Operation of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center.

DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 12-008

A RESOLUTION OF THE

SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY SUPPORTING THE FUNDING, DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION

OF THE SAN GABRIEL RIVER DISCOVERY CENTER

WHEREAS, California is facing challenges on many fronts, including enormous population growth in the coming years, with 25 million new residents expected by 2040: and

WHEREAS, these challenges place enormous pressure on area water supply and outdoor recreational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, public education regarding these issues is a key element in understanding their importance and ability to find solutions: and

WHEREAS, the San Gabriel River Discovery Center will provide a comprehensive educational facility that will address issues associated with water supply and protection, nature study and outdoor recreation, and the need for restoration of natural areas along the urban rivers; and

WHEREAS, the San Gabriel River Discovery Center will provide direct access to trails and outdoor recreational facilities at Whittier Narrows and the regional network of parks and trails proposed for development by the Emerald Necklace Coalition; and

WHEREAS. these parks provide significant benefits to health and well- being, air quality improvements, capturing and treating storm water, and maintaining cool, attractive city landscapes; and

WHEREAS, the Discovery Center will serve a population of over 9 million people, including 3 million school-age children, located within a 20-mile radius; and

WHEREAS, the Discovery Center will be housed within a facility rated as platinum under the U.S Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, and will promote sustainable building features, including energy and water efficiency in its exhibits; and

WHEREAS, the Discovery Center will provide much needed meeting space and other facilities not currently available in the immediate vicinity; and

WHEREAS, success of the Discovery Center is dependent receipt of funding from Bond funds and many other local, state, federal, private and corporate funds: and

WHEREAS, the proposed action is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority hereby resolves to support the fundraising, development and operation of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center, and believes that its establishment will significantly improve the quality of life for residents of our Community.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________________, 2012.

____________________________________ _____________________________

Louie Aguiñaga Bob Kuhn

WQA Chairman WQA Secretary

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

AWWA

9

FALL

10

CONFERENCE

11

SAN DIEGO

12 13

14 154:30pm –Reception for Mike Eng @ San Gabriel Hilton

1612pm-Admin/Finance1pm- Engineering

1712pm- Leg/Pub

18 19 20

21 22 23 2412pm- WQA Board Meeting

25 26 27

28 29 30 31

October 2012

A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN ...A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER...

Documents

Transcript of A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN ...A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER...