HomeMy WebLinkAbout1. 2015 WFMP Update March 2016 with AttachmentsOTAY WATER DISTRICT
2015 Water Facilities
Master Plan Update
Prepared for
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, California 91978--2004
Prepared by
3570 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92130
Atkins Proj No: 100038569
March 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page i
March 2016
Contents
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... v
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1‐1
1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 1‐1
1.2 District Overview ................................................................................................ 1‐2
1.3 Planning Context/Baseline Supply Conditions/Key Issues .................................. 1‐6
1.4 Report Outline and Synopsis .............................................................................. 1‐9
1.5 References ........................................................................................................ 1‐10
Chapter 2 System Criteria ......................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 2‐1
2.2 Potable Water Planning Criteria ......................................................................... 2‐1
2.2.1 System Pressures ................................................................................... 2‐1
2.2.2 Fire Protection ....................................................................................... 2‐2
2.2.3 Transmission and Distribution Pipelines................................................ 2‐5
2.2.4 Pump Stations ........................................................................................ 2‐5
2.2.5 Treated Water Storage .......................................................................... 2‐6
2.2.6 Water Supply Reliability ......................................................................... 2‐6
2.3 Recycled Water Planning Criteria ....................................................................... 2‐7
Chapter 3 Water Demands ....................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.1 Summary / Overview .......................................................................................... 3‐1
3.1.1 Planning Perspective .............................................................................. 3‐2
3.1.2 Chapter Outline ..................................................................................... 3‐2
3.2 Historical and Current Use .................................................................................. 3‐3
3.2.1 Historical Use and Recent Trends .......................................................... 3‐3
3.2.2 Use by Customer Class ........................................................................... 3‐3
3.2.3 Use by System Area ............................................................................... 3‐4
3.2.4 Seasonal Variation / Monthly Peaking Factors ...................................... 3‐5
3.2.5 Unaccounted‐For Water (Non‐Revenue Water) .................................... 3‐6
3.3 Land Use and Demographic Projections ............................................................. 3‐7
3.3.1 Land Use ................................................................................................ 3‐7
3.3.2 Population, Housing, and Employment Projections .............................. 3‐8
3.4 Projected Potable Water Demands .................................................................. 3‐10
3.4.1 Approach / Methodology .................................................................... 3‐10
3.4.2 Projected Potable Demands ................................................................ 3‐11
3.4.3 Forecast Envelope – Alternative Demand Futures .............................. 3‐14
3.4.4 Seasonal Peaking Forecast ................................................................... 3‐15
3.4.5 Possible Loss of Recycled Supply ......................................................... 3‐15
3.5 Projected Recycled Demands ........................................................................... 3‐16
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page ii
March 2016
Chapter 4 Water Supply ........................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 4‐1
4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought Conditions ................................... 4‐2
4.2.1 Imported Supplies .................................................................................. 4‐3
4.2.2 State Water Project – Background and Status of Regulatory
Processes ............................................................................................... 4‐6
4.2.3 Colorado River – Background and Status of Regulatory Processes ....... 4‐8
4.2.4 2015 California Water Supply ................................................................ 4‐8
4.3 Current Portfolio of Potable Water Sources ....................................................... 4‐9
4.3.1 San Diego County Water Authority ....................................................... 4‐9
4.3.2 Helix Water District .............................................................................. 4‐13
4.3.3 City of San Diego .................................................................................. 4‐13
4.3.4 Emergency Supplies ............................................................................. 4‐14
4.4 Baseline Supply Conditions ............................................................................... 4‐14
4.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 4‐14
4.4.2 Baseline Supply Conditions Definition ................................................. 4‐15
4.4.3 Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project ................... 4‐15
4.4.4 SDCWA/ Helix Water District ............................................................... 4‐18
4.5 Possible Future Supplies ................................................................................... 4‐18
4.6 References ........................................................................................................ 4‐20
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation ............................................................................. 5‐1
5.1 Overview/Summary ............................................................................................ 5‐1
5.2 Existing Water System ........................................................................................ 5‐1
5.2.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 5‐1
5.2.2 System Pressure Zones .......................................................................... 5‐3
5.2.3 Pump Stations ........................................................................................ 5‐8
5.2.4 Storage ................................................................................................. 5‐10
5.2.5 Pressure Reducing Stations ................................................................. 5‐12
5.2.6 Emergency Interconnections ............................................................... 5‐13
5.3 Distribution System Demands .......................................................................... 5‐15
5.3.1 Water Demands ................................................................................... 5‐15
5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis ...................................................... 5‐17
5.5 Distribution System Hydraulic Model ............................................................... 5‐24
5.5.1 Existing Model Development ............................................................... 5‐24
5.5.2 Synchronization (Sync) Plan ................................................................. 5‐24
5.5.3 Existing Model Calibration ................................................................... 5‐25
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements .................................... 5‐29
5.6.1 La Presa System ................................................................................... 5‐29
5.6.2 Hillsdale System ................................................................................... 5‐30
5.6.3 Regulatory System ............................................................................... 5‐31
5.6.4 Central Area System ............................................................................ 5‐33
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page iii
March 2016
5.6.5 Otay Mesa System ............................................................................... 5‐36
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation ........................................................................... 6‐1
6.1 Overview/Summary ............................................................................................ 6‐1
6.2 Recycled Water Supply ....................................................................................... 6‐1
6.2.1 Local Supply ........................................................................................... 6‐1
6.2.2 South Bay Water Reclamation Plant Supply .......................................... 6‐3
6.2.3 Summary of Existing Recycled Water Supply ........................................ 6‐4
6.3 Existing System Overview ................................................................................... 6‐6
6.3.1 Existing Distribution System .................................................................. 6‐6
6.4 Future System Overview ..................................................................................... 6‐7
6.5 Recycled Water Demands ................................................................................... 6‐7
6.5.1 Existing Recycled Water Demands ........................................................ 6‐8
6.5.2 Future (2050) Recycled Water Demands ............................................. 6‐10
6.6 Existing Storage and Pumping Analysis ............................................................ 6‐11
6.7 Future 2050 Recycled Water System Analysis ................................................. 6‐12
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program ......................................................... 7‐1
7.1 Overview/Summary ............................................................................................ 7‐1
7.2 Expansion, Betterment, Replacement, and Supply Offsets ................................ 7‐3
7.3 Potable Water – Recommended CIP .................................................................. 7‐4
7.4 Recycled Water – Recommended CIP............................................................... 7‐10
Appendices
A Hydraulic Model Calibration
B Water and Recycled Water Demand History and Forecasting
C Population, Employment and Development Forecasting
D Water System Information and Future Static Hydraulic Analyses
Exhibits
I Existing and Proposed Potable Water Facilities – La Presa System
II Existing and Proposed Potable Water Facilities – Hillsdale System
III Existing and Proposed Potable Water Facilities – Regulatory System
IV Existing and Proposed Potable Water Facilities – Central Area System
V Existing and Proposed Potable Water Facilities – Otay Mesa System
VI Potable Hydraulic Profile Schematic
VII Existing and Proposed Recycled Water Facilities – Central Area System
VIII Recycled Hydraulic Profile Schematic
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page iv
March 2016
Tables
Table 1‐1 Baseline Supply Conditions .............................................................................................. 1‐6
Table 1‐2 Key Planning Issues .......................................................................................................... 1‐7
Table 2‐1 Otay Water District Potable Water System Criteria ........................................................ 2‐3
Table 2‐2 Treated Water Storage Needs and District Criteria ......................................................... 2‐6
Table 2‐3 Summary of Recycled Water Demand Planning Criteria ................................................. 2‐8
Table 3‐1 Demographic and Water Demand Forecast Summary .................................................... 3‐1
Table 3‐2 Water Demand Forecasts from Recent District Master Plans ......................................... 3‐2
Table 3‐3 Historical Potable Demands ............................................................................................. 3‐3
Table 3‐4 Potable Water Customer Sales by Service Area and Customer Class (MGD) .................. 3‐4
Table 3‐5 Potable System Monthly Peaking Factors ....................................................................... 3‐6
Table 3‐6 SANDAG Series 13 Growth Forecast Data for District ..................................................... 3‐9
Table 3‐7 Summary of Unit Use Adjustment Factors .................................................................... 3‐11
Table 3‐8 Demographic and Water Demand Forecast Summary .................................................. 3‐12
Table 3‐9 Median Potable Forecast by System Area, District, and Customer Class ...................... 3‐13
Table 3‐10 Forecast Variables for Low, Median, and High Forecast Ranges ................................... 3‐14
Table 3‐11 Projected Maximum Month Peaking Factors ................................................................ 3‐15
Table 3‐12 Projected Minimum Month Peaking Factors ................................................................. 3‐15
Table 3‐13 Projected Recycled Water Demand ............................................................................... 3‐16
Table 4‐1 Supply Summary for Normal‐Year Conditions, 2013‐2050 (AFY) .................................... 4‐1
Table 4‐2 SDCWA Pipeline 4 .......................................................................................................... 4‐10
Table 4‐3 SDCWA/Helix FCF Connections ...................................................................................... 4‐13
Table 4‐4 Baseline Supply Conditions ............................................................................................ 4‐15
Table 4‐5 Possible Future Supplies ................................................................................................ 4‐19
Table 5‐1 District Pressure Zones .................................................................................................... 5‐4
Table 5‐2 North District Pump Stations ........................................................................................... 5‐9
Table 5‐3 South District Pump Stations ......................................................................................... 5‐10
Table 5‐4 North District Potable Water Storage Reservoirs .......................................................... 5‐11
Table 5‐5 South District Potable Water Storage Reservoirs .......................................................... 5‐12
Table 5‐6 Emergency Interconnections ......................................................................................... 5‐14
Table 5‐7 Water Demands by Pressure Zone and Service Area .................................................... 5‐16
Table 5‐8 North District Existing Distribution Storage Analysis ..................................................... 5‐19
Table 5‐9 South District Existing Distribution Storage Analysis ..................................................... 5‐20
Table 5‐10 North District Existing Distribution Pumping Analysis ................................................... 5‐21
Table 5‐11 South District Existing Distribution Pumping Analysis ................................................... 5‐23
Table 5‐12 Potable Water Model Level of Confidence by Zone ...................................................... 5‐26
Table 6‐1 District’s Largest Recycled Water Customers .................................................................. 6‐8
Table 6‐2 Recycled Water Demands by Pressure Zone ................................................................... 6‐9
Table 6‐3 Future (2050) Required Recycled Water Supply ............................................................ 6‐11
Table 6‐4 Existing Recycled Water Storage Analysis ..................................................................... 6‐11
Table 6‐5 Existing Recycled Water Pump Station Analysis ............................................................ 6‐12
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page v
March 2016
Table 7‐1 Phase 1 CIPs Currently under Design or Construction ..................................................... 7‐5
Table 7‐2 Potable Water Pump Station CIP Projects ....................................................................... 7‐6
Table 7‐3 Potable Water Pipeline CIP Projects ................................................................................ 7‐7
Table 7‐4 Recycled Water CIP Projects .......................................................................................... 7‐10
Table 7‐5 Water Supply Projects ................................................................................................... 7‐12
Figures
Figure 1‐1 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 1‐3
Figure 1‐2 Water Service Areas ......................................................................................................... 1‐4
Figure 1‐3 Future Developments ...................................................................................................... 1‐5
Figure 2‐1 Fire Severity Zones ........................................................................................................... 2‐4
Figure 3‐1 Historical and Projected District Total Water Demands .................................................. 3‐1
Figure 3‐2 Distribution of Potable Use by Customer Class (Sales) .................................................... 3‐4
Figure 3‐3 Projected Potable Water Demands ............................................................................... 3‐12
Figure 3‐4 Projected Recycled Water Demands ............................................................................. 3‐16
Figure 4‐1 Supply Summary for Normal‐Year Conditions, 2013‐2050 .............................................. 4‐2
Figure 4‐2 MWD Sources of Supply .................................................................................................. 4‐4
Figure 4‐3 Delivering Water to the District ....................................................................................... 4‐5
Figure 4‐4 Bay Delta Conservation Plan Proposed Tunnel Option ................................................... 4‐7
Figure 4‐5 Otay Water Supply Sources Schematic .......................................................................... 4‐12
Figure 4‐6 Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project ............................................. 4‐17
Figure 5‐1 Existing Potable Water Systems ...................................................................................... 5‐2
Figure 5‐2 Model Diurnal Patterns .................................................................................................. 5‐25
Figure 5‐3 711 Reservoirs, Model Calibration Results .................................................................... 5‐28
Figure 5‐4 711 Pump Station, Model Calibration Results ............................................................... 5‐28
Figure 6‐1 Recycled Water Vicinity Map ........................................................................................... 6‐2
Figure 6‐2 Hydrologic Subareas ........................................................................................................ 6‐5
Figure 6‐3 Historic Seasonal Use of Recycled Water in Otay Water District .................................. 6‐10
Acronyms
ADD Average Day Demand
ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow
AFY Acre Feet per Year
AOI Area of Influence
BDCP Bay Delta Conservation Plan
CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CEQA California Environment Quality Act
cfs cubic feet per second
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page vi
March 2016
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CVP Central Valley Project
DDW Division of Drinking Water
District Otay Water District
DPR Direct Potable Reuse
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESP Emergency Storage Project
FCF Flow Control Facility
Fire Code California Fire Code
fps feet per second
gpm gallons per minute
HA Hydrographic Areas
HSA Hydrographic Subareas
HWL High Water Level
IID Imperial Irrigation District
IPR Indirect Potable Reuse
IRP Integrated Resources Plan
LAFCO San Diego Local Area Formation Commission
LMSE La Mesa‐Sweetwater Extension
LOPS Lower Otay Pump Station
MAF Million Acre Feet
Master Plan 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update
MBR Membrane Bio‐Reactor
MDD Maximum Demand Day
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
OMCDSP Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project
PH Peak Hour
PPP Public‐Private Partnerships
PRS Pressure Reducing Station
psi pounds per square inch
PZ Pressure Zone
RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan
RWCWRF Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SBWRF South Bay Water Reclamation Facility
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page vii
March 2016
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
SMWD Santa Margarita Water District
SPI Separation Processes, Inc.
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
UBC Uniform Plumbing Code
WTP Water Treatment Plant
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page viii
March 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-1
March 2016
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan
Update (Master Plan) for the Otay Water District (District). The report includes a comprehensive review
of the District’s potable and recycled water systems, and identifies a plan of capital improvements
necessary for each system to support future conditions including major planned land development
projects, while providing reliable and economical service to the District’s customers.
The purpose of the Master Plan is:
1. Update Planning Criteria and the District’s Hydraulic System Models: Review and update, as
necessary, the District’s system performance criteria, and update the District’s InfoWater system
hydraulic models to account for new development and to maintain integration with the District’s
GIS system.
2. Map Out Water and Recycled Water Facility Improvements: Identify and prioritize the District’s
facility needs, including transmission, storage, and pumping facilities, to serve projected future
conditions.
3. Update the District’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Update the District’s near‐term (2020)
and long‐term (2050) CIP, based on a new demand forecast, new supply options and identified
facility needs.
4. Identify Adaptive Responses to Changed Conditions: Identify how needed facility improvements
and CIP items would change should future demand and supply conditions vary from baseline
assumptions.
Planning for the Master Plan is based on the latest regional growth forecasts developed by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG), and is consistent with the adopted land use plans of all
jurisdictions within the District boundaries. The District coordinates with these jurisdictions through its
development of Urban Water Management Plans, and through other ongoing coordination to ensure land
use plans account for the availability of water supplies and water service infrastructure.
Program Environmental Impact Report
As part of its overall master planning process, the District is also preparing a Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) evaluating the environmental effects and consequences of the various CIP projects
recommended in the Master Plan. The Program EIR addresses environmental issues common to the CIP
as a whole, and where possible also addresses project‐level effects of near‐term CIP projects, allowing
these projects to proceed in an efficient, streamlined manner. The Program EIR is a separate document
prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA).
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.2 District Overview
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-2
March 2016
1.2 District Overview
The District is a publicly owned retail water and
sewer agency serving a 125.5 square mile portion
of southern San Diego County. The District
boundaries encompass a large portion of eastern
Chula Vista, a portion of the city of San Diego on
Otay Mesa, and various unincorporated areas,
including Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley,
Bonita, Otay Mesa, and areas adjacent to El Cajon
and La Mesa. The District’s boundaries, future
developments, and service areas are shown in
Figure 1 1, Figure 1‐2 and Figure 1 3.
The District provides water service to almost all of
the area within its boundaries, encompassing
approximately 200,000 residents and making the
District the second largest water purveyor by
population in the county. The District provides
sewer service only within the Jamacha drainage
basin in the northern portion of its service area,
where it also operates a small water recycling
plant. Sewer service for the remainder of the area
within the District boundaries is provided by other
public entities. The District also provides recycled
water service, primarily within the eastern portion
of the city of Chula Vista, in the District’s Central
service area.
The District was authorized as a California Special
District by the State Legislature in 1956, under the
provisions of the Municipal Water District Code. A
five member elected Board of Directors sets
ordinances, policies, taxes, and rates for providing
sewer, potable and recycled water services within the District service area. The District is revenue neutral:
each end user pays their fair share of the District’s costs of capital improvements, water acquisition, and
the operation and maintenance of its facilities.
The District is a member agency of the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). SDCWA is responsible
for transmission of the imported water supply within San Diego County to all its member agencies. SDCWA
is a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The District receives
imported potable water from the aqueduct systems owned and operated by SDCWA and MWD. Through
agreements with neighboring water agencies, the District can also purchase potable water from local
water treatment plants. The District continues to be active in reducing demands through conservation
measures, and in pursuing new local and innovative sources of supply to increase system reliability,
flexibility, and economy.
District Mission
To provide high quality and reliable water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District, in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "A District that is innovative in providing water services at competitive rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.
Otay’s Past, Present, and Future
The District was originally formed in 1956 to make imported and local water supplies available to a portion of southeastern San Diego County. Today’s District is the result of the merger between the original Otay Municipal Water District and the smaller La Presa County Water District, which had formed in 1957 to provide water service to the communities of La Presa and south Spring Valley.
Since the two small water agencies shared a common service area, in 1962 they entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to make the best use of equipment, labor, management, and operations. The consolidation worked perfectly resulting in savings for water customers and the construction of a joint use facility. With the success of the combined operations, the two boards of directors voted unanimously to officially dissolve La Presa in 1969, with Otay Water District taking control of all of La Presa's assets, debts, and resources.
Today, the District serves the needs of its customers by purchasing imported water from SDCWA. Otay takes delivery of most of this water through several connections to large diameter pipelines owned and operated by SDCWA.
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.2 District Overview
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-3
March 2016
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.2 District Overview
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-4
March 2016
Figure 1-2 Water Service Areas
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.2 District Overview
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-5
March 2016
Figure 1-3 Future Developments
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.3 Planning Context/Baseline Supply Conditions/Key Issues
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-6
March 2016
1.3 Planning Context/Baseline Supply
Conditions/Key Issues
This 2015 Master Plan builds on the District’s previous comprehensive 2008 Water Resource Master Plan
Update (PBS&J 2008), the 2009 Program EIR (PBS&J 2010), and on minor updates that were completed
in 2010 and 2013 to the 2008 Master Plan. The 2015 Master Plan also interfaces with the District’s 2015
Integrated Resources Plan (IRP), which defines a course for the District’s development of local water
supply projects. To the extent the supply plans identified in the IRP affect the planning of the District’s
potable and recycled water systems, they are incorporated into the Master Plan.
Baseline Supply Conditions
Based on the information in the IRP, the Master Plan assumes the water supply conditions listed in
Table 1‐1 will be in effect, and defines these as baseline planning assumptions. The primary CIP
recommendations of the Master Plan are based on these assumptions. The Master Plan also identifies
how needed facility improvements and CIP projects could change should future demand and supply
conditions vary from the listed baseline assumptions.
Table 1-1 Baseline Supply Conditions
Baseline Supply Condition Description
Otay Mesa Conveyance Project in
place by 2020 (Rosarito Seawater
Desalination)
The District anticipates entering into an agreement to purchase approximately 20 million
gallons per day (MGD) of desalinated seawater from a plant to be developed in Rosarito, Baja
California, Mexico, by a public‐private venture (NCS Aqua). The Master Plan baseline planning
condition assumes this supply will be available by 2020.
Continued availability of recycled
water supply from City of San
Diego
The District currently purchases recycled water from the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water
Reclamation Facility (SBWRF), under the terms of an agreement that expires in 2026. The
Master Plan baseline condition assumes the agreement will be renewed and that recycled
water will continue to be available to supply the District throughout the plan’s horizon year.
Recycled water service to Central
service area only
The District currently serves recycled water only in its Central service area, covering most of
eastern Chula Vista. Through previous investigations, the District has determined recycled
service in its North District area is impracticable due to stringent requirements for use
upstream of Sweetwater Reservoir and Lower Otay Reservoir. Also, the District has long
planned for future recycled water service to its Otay Mesa service area in support of planned
industrial development, but based on a re‐evaluation of costs, and on uncertainty as to the
future supply availability from the City of San Diego, has implemented a moratorium on
additional expenditures toward such a system. The Master Plan baseline condition assumes
recycled water service will be available to the Central service area only.
Continued availability of backup
supply from the City of San Diego’s
Otay Water Treatment Plant
(WTP)
Under the terms of an agreement with the City of San Diego, the District may purchase up to
10 MGD of regular or backup supply from the City of San Diego’s Otay WTP, as conveyed
using the District’s Lower Otay Pump Station (LOPS). The Master Plan baseline condition
assumes this agreement will remain in place throughout the plan’s horizon year.
SDCWA to maintain Pipeline 4 fully
operational
SDCWA’s main imported transmission pipeline serving the District is Pipeline 4. In order to
protect water quality, SDCWA’s current practice is to maintain certain minimum seasonal
flows in the pipeline, even to the extent of spilling treated water into Lower Otay Reservoir.
Any new supply could reduce the flow rates in Pipeline 4. The Master Plan baseline condition
assumes SDCWA will take whatever steps necessary to maintain Pipeline 4 operational, such
that Pipeline 4 remains available to provide supplemental and backup supply to the District.
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.3 Planning Context/Baseline Supply Conditions/Key Issues
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-7
March 2016
Key Issues
Key issues affecting the development and recommendations of the 2015 Master Plan are listed in
Table 1‐2. These include consideration of changed conditions relative to the District’s 2008 Master Plan,
including a marked decline in per capita water use, revisions to the District’s assumed future supply
portfolio, and other changes.
Table 1-2 Key Planning Issues
Issue Description Implications to 2015 WFMP
Decline in per capita
water use
■ FY2013‐14 and FY2014‐15 potable use per
account has declined almost 20 percent in
comparison to 2005‐06 conditions.
■ Projected 2040 demands in this Master Plan
are approximately one‐third percent less
than those in the District’s previous 2008
Master Plan.
■ Reduces the need for capacity expansion and
treated water storage projects; reduces CIP
■ Reduces potential demand that could be
served by a new water supply
■ Projected per capita demand levels indicate
the District will remain in compliance with
SBx7‐7 (the “20% by 2020” legislation)
With and without a new
water supply
■ The Master Plan incorporates a new water
supply as an assumed future baseload supply,
while also identifying the effect on the
District’s facility plans and CIP should the
project not develop as planned.
■ Incorporation of a new water supply could
complicate Pipeline 4 water quality
maintenance. The Master Plan assumes
SDCWA will be able to maintain Pipeline 4 in
service, while also identifying the effect on
the District’s facility plans and CIP should
SDCWA remove Pipeline 4 from normal
operating service.
■ Water supply integration requires the
construction of the Otay Mesa Conveyance
and Disinfection facilities, and other
transmission system modifications.
■ Pipeline 4 Water Quality Maintenance: The
Master Plan identifies changes to the CIP that
would result from the removal of Pipeline 4
from normal operating service: additional
north‐south interconnect capacity to move
Levy water to the Central and Otay Mesa
service areas, reliable and economical access
to Otay WTP supplies, or a combination of
the two.
With and without
SBWRF recycled water
supply
■ The District’s purchase agreement for
recycled water from the SBWRF expires in
2026, and the City of San Diego has not
committed to an extension. The Master Plan
assumes continued recycled water purchases
from the City as a baseline condition, while
also identifying the effect on facility plans
should the agreement be allowed to expire.
■ The District has declared a temporary
moratorium on recycled facility development
in the Otay Mesa service area. The Master
Plan assumes the Otay Mesa recycled water
moratorium remains in place.
■ If the City stops selling recycled water to the
District, the District would need to replace
the supply, presumably with non‐potable
water or potable water.
■ The Master Plan will identify trigger points
for related facility improvements in the
Central service area.
North‐South
Interconnect
■ District planning has always assumed the
eventual construction of a north‐south
interconnect to enhance service reliability
and operational flexibility. The need for, and
size of, an interconnect facility may increase
if new water supply deliveries lead the
SDCWA to remove Pipeline 4 from normal
operating service.
■ The Master Plan evaluates the need for and
sizing of a north‐south interconnect with the
baseline assumption that the SDCWA is able
to maintain Pipeline 4 in normal operation
with a new water supply in place. The Master
Plan also identifies contingency need and
sizing should the SDCWA conclude it would
be unable to maintain Pipeline 4 in normal
service.
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.3 Planning Context/Baseline Supply Conditions/Key Issues
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-8
March 2016
Table 1-2 Key Planning Issues
Issue Description Implications to 2015 WFMP
Treated water storage
volume, 10‐day
reliability, and water
quality maintenance
■ District criteria call for it to be able to serve
full customer demands during a 10‐day
outage of Pipeline 4, in any month of the
year. Supplies can be from treated water
storage, District local supplies, and water
supply agreements and interconnections with
neighboring agencies.
■ Existing treated water storage reserves are
currently constrained by water quality
maintenance and other operating
considerations, such that the available
emergency storage reserve presented in past
master plans may be overstated.
■ Demand growth, the mix of future supply
sources, water quality maintenance
considerations, the availability of backup
supply from the Otay WTP, and other factors
will all influence the Master Plan’s
assessment of the need for new and modified
treated water storage facilities.
■ Water storage operations practice are
considered in design and planning criteria
updates to ensure the District is not over‐
building treated water storage in the future.
Backup supply from
Otay WTP
■ The District has an existing agreement with
the City of San Diego to purchase treated
water from the Otay WTP, provided the
water is surplus to the City’s needs. Due to
higher treatment transaction costs, the
District utilizes the agreement only during
aqueduct shutdowns and emergencies.
■ The City is embarking on a new Pure Water
program that would increase the raw water
supply to the Otay WTP and which may
increase the City’s interest in selling water
from the plant to the District.
■ Reliable backup supply availability from the
City may reduce the District’s need for
treated water storage.
■ The District maintains a CIP for a new LOPS
facility to convey potable water directly from
the Otay WTP to the Central service area.
Forecast sensitivity /
Plan adaptability
■ The Master Plan needs to be adaptable to
future demand, supply, and other conditions
should they vary from the Master Plan’s
baseline assumptions.
■ The Master Plan makes several baseline
assumptions as to future demand, supply,
and other conditions, and identifies a
corresponding set of CIP components and
recommendations.
■ The Master Plan also flags key variables that
could alter the CIP, and identifies how the CIP
could adjust to should future conditions vary
from the Master Plan’s baseline assumptions.
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.4 Report Outline and Synopsis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-9
March 2016
1.4 Report Outline and Synopsis
The Master Plan report is organized into seven chapters as follows:
Chapter Contents Synopsis
1. Introduction ■ Purpose
■ District overview
■ Key Issues
■ Report outline
The Master Plan identifies the facilities and capital funding the District will
need to continue providing reliable water and recycled water service to its
customers through 2050. Supply and demand conditions have changed
significantly since the last District master plan in 2008; the 2015 Master Plan
addresses these changed conditions.
2. System Criteria ■ Water and recycled
system planning and
design criteria
The District’s planning criteria define the minimum levels of flow capacity,
storage capacity, and operational reliability required for the District to
provide excellent service to its customers. Because water service is a life‐line
requirement, these criteria and service standards are necessarily and
appropriately high.
3. Water Demands ■ Historical, current, and
projected water
demands
Water demands have declined significantly in recent years due to
conservation and water price increases. Additionally, reoccurring conditions
such as economic recession and mandatory use restrictions have both
occurred and resulted in additional reduction of water demands. The Master
Plan projects potable demands will increase in response to population and
employment growth, but at a slower pace than that growth, with future
demands significantly below the levels projected in previous master plans.
4. Water Supplies ■ Existing and planned
future water supplies
■ Review of District’s
water supply reliability
The District’s Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection Project (Rosarito Desal)
will make desalinated seawater the primary source of supply to the Central
and Otay Mesa service areas. Even so, the District will continue to be reliant
on service from SDCWA (via Pipeline 4) for supplemental and backup supplies
to these areas. The North District will continue to be supplied primarily with
SDCWA water treated at the Helix Water District’s Levy water filtration plant,
with supplemental and backup supply from Pipeline 4. This source
redundancy affords excellent supply reliability throughout the District service
area. A north‐south interconnect project will further enhance reliability and
operational flexibility.
5. Potable Water
System
Evaluation
■ Review of existing
system and needed
improvements
The Master Plan identifies needed capital improvements addressing the
following categories:
a) system expansion to serve new development;
b) improved water distribution and quality;
c) replace aging infrastructure; and
d) improve system redundancy, reliability, and flexibility.
6. Recycled Water
System
Evaluation
■ Review of existing
system and needed
improvements
The Master Plan identifies needed capital improvements addressing the
following categories:
a) system expansion to serve new development;
b) improved recycled water service, pumping and distribution; and
c) maximize supply from SBWRF.
7. Capital
Improvement
Program
■ Summary of 5‐year
(2021) and long‐term
(2022 to 2050) capital
spending
recommendations
5‐Year (2021) Capital Spending (Phase I and Phase II):
Potable: $130 million
Recycled: $7.0 million
Additional Long‐Term (2022 to 2050) Capital Spending (Phase III):
Potable: $181 million
Recycled: $16.9 million
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.5 References
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-10
March 2016
1.5 References
CDM, 2007. Otay Water District Integrated Resources Plan, March.
City of Chula Vista, 2015. Growth Management Annual Report, July.
City of Chula Vista, 2014. Final Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, Infrastructure Engineering
Corporation, May.
Otay Water District, 2002. Water Resources Master Plan, August.
Otay Water District, 2010. Urban Water Management Plan.
Otay Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
Carollo, 2015 Otay Water District Integrated Water Resources Plan Update, June 2016
Otay Water District, Sewer System Management Plan.
PBS&J, 2007. Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility Engineering Report on the Production,
Distribution and Use of Recycled Water, January.
PBS&J, 2008. North District Recycled Water Study Development Project, Phase 1 Concept Study, DRAFT,
October.
PBS&J, 2008. Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan Update, October 2008 (revised November
2010 and April 2013).
PBS&J, 2010. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Water District 2009 Water
Resources Master Plan Update, January.
SANDAG, 2013. Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast Projections, August.
U.S Bureau of Reclamation, 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, December.
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 2-1
March 2016
Chapter 2
SYSTEM CRITERIA
2.1 Overview
This chapter presents the District’s water and recycled water system planning and design criteria,
including the District’s water supply reliability goals. The District’s potable and recycled water CIP is
planned and sized based on these criteria. The criteria address system operating pressures, fire protection
(fire flow requirements), transmission and distribution pipeline sizing, pump station capacity sizing,
treated water storage capacity for operational uses, and emergency water supply and storage
requirements. Recycled water system criteria is presented in Section 2.3, Recycled Water Planning
Criteria.
In comparison to the District’s previous 2008 Master Plan, notable criteria refinements in the 2015 Master
Plan include new guidelines for off‐peak pumping capacity and adjustments to treated water emergency
storage criteria to balance these with water quality maintenance objectives. Most of the design criteria
remain unchanged.
2.2 Potable Water Planning Criteria
The District’s potable water system planning criteria are presented in Table 2‐1. These criteria have been
reviewed and refined based on the following:
■ October 2008 Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan
■ Water Agency Standards Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer Facilities, as revised July 28, 2014
■ Review of District current supply, pumping, and storage operations
2.2.1 System Pressures
Like most water systems, the District’s water service area is divided by elevation bands into pressure
zones, with each zone defined by its maximum hydraulic gradient, in feet of elevation. For example, in the
District’s Central service area, ground elevations increase from west to east, and likewise the pressure
zones increase from the 624, to the 711, and to the 980 at the easternmost portion. Pressure zone
boundaries are designed to achieve required operating pressures and provide an adequate level of service
to customers and meet the necessary fire flow demands, while minimizing system leakage and the
expense for more substantial and extensive piping system and appurtenances. The potable water system
with over 40,000 nodes has an average pressure of 117.7 psi.
■ Minimum Pressures: The Master Plan recommends a minimum design static pressure of 65 psi,
unchanged from the previous master plan.
Chapter 2 System Criteria
2.2 Potable Water Planning Criteria
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 2-2
March 2016
■ Maximum Pressures: The Master Plan recommends an Acceptable Maximum static pressure for
existing developed zones of 200 psi, and a Preferred Maximum for newly developed areas of
120 psi, both unchanged from the previous master plan.
Service connections must have a pressure regulator installed to maintain a maximum service pressure of
80 psi to protect typical household plumbing. The pressure regulator must also comply with the criteria
established in the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC). In addition, the water meter may also need to be
protected on the upstream side when pressures exceed 150 psi per the District’s requirements and Water
Agency Standards.
2.2.2 Fire Protection
Various planning fire flow
requirements have been established
by the fire protection agencies
operating within the District’s
boundaries. Fire protection districts to
the north include Spring Valley and
Jamul‐Dulzura; those to the south
include the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, and the County of San Diego. California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) provides service to those rural areas not a part of a fire protection
district. Fire flow requirements are generally based on the 2013 California Fire Code (Fire Code) which
includes needed fire flow based on building construction, floor space and/or land use acreage and, in
some instances, a combination of these parameters.
The Fire Code now requires all residential buildings to be fully equipped with a sprinkler system. For
residential buildings located within designated High Severity Zone establishes, a minimum residential fire
flow of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm) is required. The fire severity zones were developed partially due
to the need for higher residential fire flows at wild land urban interface areas. Fire severity zones are
presented in Figure 2‐1 and generally include the more rural eastern areas of the District.
The Fire Code also includes a recommended allowance of a 50 percent reduction in needed fire flow if the
buildings are equipped with a sprinkler system. Most of the fire protection agencies operating in the
District service area allow for this reduction, with the exception of the City of Chula Vista. The City of Chula
Vista is reviewing this allowance with a Development Review Committee. The 2015 WFMP will continue
to utilize the general plan land use fire flows shown below in Table 2‐1. Based on recent water system
analyses for new developments in the District, the land use based fire flows have been found to be good
planning level assumptions for pipeline sizing.
The water distribution system is analyzed on the basis of delivering the required fire flow for a specified
duration on the maximum demand day (MDD) of the year. This condition is typically used to determine
the size of most distribution mains comprising the system. The MDD plus fire flow demand usually imposes
the most critical hydraulic condition resulting in low residual distribution system pressures and high
velocities.
Fire flow quantities and durations for master planning purposes are determined based on the type of land
use served. Table 2‐1 (below) includes recommended uniform fire flow criteria for various land use types
throughout the District for new construction and water system sizing. Minimum fire flows range from
1,500 gpm for 2 hours for single‐family residential areas to 5,000 gpm for 4 hours for hospitals and resorts.
2013 California Fire Code Updates
1) Residential Fire Sprinklers: California Fire Code now requires all residential buildings to have fire sprinkler systems.
2) High Severity Zones: Residential fire flow increase from 1,500 gpm to 2,500 gpm for only high and very high fire severity zone areas
Chapter 2 System Criteria
2.2 Potable Water Planning Criteria
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 2-3
March 2016
Table 2-1 Otay Water District Potable Water System Criteria
Criteria Recommended Value
Peaking Factors (Steady-state)
Minimum Day/Average Day Ratio 0.85
Maximum Day/Average Day Ratio
Peak Hour/Average Day Ratio
Per WAS Curve 2,
General Required Fire Flows
Single Family Residential 1,500 gpm ‐ 2 hours
Single Family Residential (High Severity Zone only) 2,500 gpm ‐ 2 hours
Multi‐Family Residential 2,500 gpm ‐ 2 hours
Commercial/Business 3,500 gpm ‐ 3 hours
Industrial 3,500 gpm ‐ 4 hours
Schools/Hospitals/Resorts/Hotels 5,000 gpm ‐ 4 hours
Distribution System Storage
Operating or Regulating Storage 0.30 MDD
Fire Storage (Largest Fire Flow in zone x duration)
Emergency Reserve Component 1.0 MDD
Pressures
Maximum Allowable Static 200 psi
Minimum Desirable Static 65 psi
Minimum Peak Hour 40 psi
Minimum Maximum Day + Fire Flow 20 psi
Pump Station Capacity
Pumping Period 16 hours on MDD
Pumping Capacity(1) Maximum Day Demand
Redundancy One stand‐by pump for largest unit
Standby Power Portable or permanent generator
Pipelines
Maximum Velocity ‐ Peak Hour 6 fps
Maximum Desired Velocity (Maximum Day + Fire Flow) 10 fps(2)
Maximum Desired Headloss per thousand feet 10 feet
Minimum Diameter 8 inch
Hazen‐Williams “C” factor (12‐inch diameter or less) 120
Hazen‐Williams “C” factor (>12‐inch diameter) 130
gpm = gallons per minute; MDD = Maximum day demand; psi = pounds per square inch; fps = feet per second
(1) For closed systems, pump capacity equals peak hour demand or max day plus fire flow, whichever is greater.
(2) On a case by case basis District may allow higher velocities assuming minimum residual pressures are satisfied.
https://www.sdwas.org/Portals/0/Documents/Vol1/Section4/4.1_Figure4-1-2.pdf
https://www.sdwas.org/Portals/0/Documents/Vol1/Section4/4.1_Figure4-1-1.pdf
Per WAS Curve 2,
Chapter 2 System Criteria
2.2 Potable Water Planning Criteria
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 2-4
March 2016
Figure 2-1 Fire Severity Zones
Chapter 2 System Criteria
2.2 Potable Water Planning Criteria
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 2-5
March 2016
2.2.3 Transmission and Distribution Pipelines
Pipeline sizing criteria aim to minimize wear on valves and scouring of interior coatings and to limit
distribution system head loss. The design criteria allow a peak hour (PH) pipeline velocity of 6 feet per
second (fps) for distribution and transmission mains. In general, transmission mains are designed to
provide for PH, while distribution piping is sized for providing MDD plus fire flow. Under MDD plus fire
flow, pipelines are sized such that maximum velocities do not exceed 10 fps while maintaining a minimum
residual dynamic pressure of 20 psi. Under PH conditions, maximum velocities of 6 fps require maintaining
a minimum residual pressure of 40 psi. In special circumstances, piping facilities may operate outside
maximum velocity ranges if minimum residual pressures are met and conditional approval is obtained
from the District.
A Hazen‐Williams C‐factor of 130 is to be used for pipelines larger than 12‐inch diameter and 120 for
pipelines of 12‐inch diameter or smaller for planning studies. The existing calibrated hydraulic model may
adjust system C‐factors to achieve calibration goals. Surge pressure analyses will be required during facility
design and adequate surge protection methods or devices provided as necessary to protect distribution
system facilities from excessive pressure conditions. Appropriate pipeline pressure classes within the
influence of increased pressure during normal pumping station operations must be provided as well.
2.2.4 Pump Stations
Pump station criteria were developed to provide the District with design requirements for operational
needs. In particular, the pump sizing, redundancy requirements, and backup power needs are listed in
Table 2‐1. The capacity and total dynamic head requirements for each station will depend on the area to
be served and are evaluated on a project‐by‐project basis.
The District’s potable water pump station facilities are sized to provide an installed capacity, defined as
firm capacity, equal to the cumulative MDD of all pressure zones supplied, including higher zones, being
supplied over a 16‐hour period. The 2008 WRMP utilized a 24‐hour pump period with a note to indicate
pump to occur during non‐peak energy hours so it is anticipated that with the 2015 Master Plan there
may be some upgrade to pumping capacity needed. The cumulative MDP equates to summing annual
average day demands (ADD) for all pressure zones served, then multiplying by the cumulative maximum
day peaking factor. The District operates through the course of the year based on various off‐peak
pumping rates and schedule determined with SDG&E and adjusting pumping operations accordingly. The
District’s goals is on the worse case MDD to at least avoid peak pumping periods which result in some of
the highest energy charges. During extended high power demand, the District coordinates with SDG&E to
minimize pumping times by utilizing storage.
PH and fire flow demands in excess of MDD are to be supplied from water stored within the operational
reservoirs within each pressure zone. Standby pumping units with capacity equal to the largest unit in a
pump station and emergency power supplies are recommended for each station.
For closed pressure systems (e.g., hydro‐pneumatic pressure zones), the pumping station facilities are
sized to provide installed (firm) capacity equal to PH demand or maximum day plus fire flow, whichever
is greater. This equates to summing annual ADD for the zone served then multiplying by the PH peaking
factor or MDD plus largest fire flow. A standby pumping unit with capacity equal to the largest station unit
and emergency power supplies are recommended for each hydro‐pneumatic pump station. Also, a
pumping unit with a capacity estimated to represent nighttime demand (i.e., 30 percent of annual ADD)
should be provided to prevent cycling of the larger units under repeated small demand conditions.
Chapter 2 System Criteria
2.2 Potable Water Planning Criteria
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 2-6
March 2016
2.2.5 Treated Water Storage
Treated water storage serves the potable water system needs summarized in Table 2‐2. The District sizes
and locates treated water reservoirs for each pressure zone for the total of each storage component listed
in the table. If storage cannot be provided within the zone, then storage may be located in the next higher
pressure zone that is connected via a pressure reducing station. In such a case, the pressure reducing
station must be sized to pass the MDD plus fire flow to the lower zone.
Table 2-2 Treated Water Storage Needs and District Criteria
Storage Need Description District Criteria
Operational Balances short‐term variations in demand throughout the
day with a relatively constant incoming supply to the
water system, and serves peak demands that exceed the
maximum‐day supply capacity of the transmission
pipelines.
By Pressure Zone: 30% MDD
Fire Flow Provides the capability to serve fire flow requirements that
exceed the maximum‐day supply capacity of the
transmission pipelines.
By Pressure Zone: Sized to meet largest fire
flow rate and duration required for zone
Emergency Provides treated water storage for use during an
emergency situation such as a facility outage. Also,
provides flexibility to manage pumping operation with
more favorable off‐peak pumping rates with SDG&E.
By Pressure Zone: 100% MDD
District‐wide: Up to 3 days ADD during a
maximum month
Total By Pressure Zone: 130% MDD + Fire Flow
District‐wide: Total storage for each pressure
zone, plus up to 5 days ADD a maximum month
Providing adequate reservoir storage is critical to effective potable water system operations. Distribution
system operational storage reservoirs typically serve a particular pressure zone and provide a sufficient
volume of water to accommodate hourly fluctuations in water demand while being supplied by pumping
facilities. Operational storage allows pump stations and associated transmission mains in each pressure
zone to operate at a relatively uniform rate, equivalent to the MDD condition. When a PH demand occurs,
the flow is supplied from operational storage within the reservoirs because daily operational and fire
storage are contained within the operational storage component. Fire flow rate and volume is supplied
from the fire storage component in each reservoir. These operational reservoirs also contain an
emergency reserve volume component to allow each pressure zone in the District to weather such events
as power outages, mechanical system failures, short‐term SDCWA supply interruptions, etc. In addition,
emergency reserves provide flexibility to work with SDG&E and improve power costs through the year.
As noted in Table 2‐2, District policy is to size distribution system operational storage reservoirs in each
pressure zone based on the sum of: (a) daily operational capacity equal to 30 percent of MDD, (b)
emergency reserve capacity equal to one MDD, and (c) the maximum fire flow volume, resulting in:
Storage by Pressure Zone = Fire Volume + 1.3 MDD. District‐wide storage for reliability, in particular
meeting SDCWA shutdowns, is summarized in the next section.
2.2.6 Water Supply Reliability
The District is reliant on imported water for all of its supply. The District recognizes that its supply of
imported water may be subject to reductions during droughts or other shortage situations. Also, the
District recognizes that the facilities that deliver imported water into San Diego County and to the District’s
Chapter 2 System Criteria
2.3 Recycled Water Planning Criteria
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 2-7
March 2016
service area are subject to scheduled maintenance shutdowns, as well as to unscheduled service outages
due to pipe failures or other emergency events.
SDCWA reserves the right to shut‐down its aqueduct facilities for scheduled and unscheduled
maintenance, and advises its member agencies to have the ability to operate independently of SDCWA
supplies for up to 10 continuous days anytime of the year. SDCWA schedules routine maintenance
shutdowns of its facilities during the winter months when demands are low. Many agencies target their
planning efforts to sustain a 10‐wintertime‐day interruption of SDCWA deliveries. Should an unscheduled
outage occur during the peak demand summer months, these agencies may need to impose water use
restrictions during the outage period.
Scheduled aqueduct shut‐downs are usually to individual pipelines, such that agencies with access to
more than one aqueduct pipeline may be able to sustain a 10‐day outage of one pipeline by simply
drawing on another. Also, scheduled shutdowns are typically scheduled for the winter months, when
demands are low.
In the case of the District, the critical aqueduct supply pipeline is SDCWA Pipeline 4, which supplies treated
water. Today, during an outage of Pipeline 4, the District would draw on water treated by Helix Water
District for the North District, from the City of San Diego’s Otay WTP (under the District’s agreement with
the City) for the South District, and from the District’s emergency treated water storage component. In
the future, it is anticipated that a new water supply project would become the new baseline supply greatly
enhancing reliability.
District Supply Reliability Goal
The District’s goal is the ability to sustain a 10‐day
outage of supply from Pipeline 4 at any time of the year
without a reduction in service level. The District seeks to
obtain this level of supply reliability through the
development of alternative water supplies, through
agreements with neighboring water districts, and
through treated water storage. Treated water storage is
to contribute no more than five days of the reliability
goal, with the balance coming from other sources. Over
time, the District seeks to decrease its reliability on
treated water storage and rely more on alternative
water supplies and agreements, as illustrated in the
accompanying chart.
Chapter 5, Potable Water System Evaluation, presents
summary statistics of the current status, based on
existing 2013 water demands, of the District’s supply
reliability relative to its goals.
2.3 Recycled Water Planning Criteria
Similar to potable water systems, Table 2‐3 presents planning criteria for reservoir, pump station and
pipeline facilities. The criteria used to project recycled water demands is also summarized in Table 2‐3.
The percent of irrigated area by land use category is applied to the gross acreages except for the street,
10-Day Supply Reliability
10
5
3
The District’s goal is the ability to operate independently from the SDCWA pipeline for 10 days, through a combination of treated water storage and alternative supply arrangements. The graph shows treated water storage making up between three and five days of the total reserve. Based on existing and District storage and planned storage projects, treated water storage will make up approximately three days of the reserve at buildout conditions, with the balance coming from other supply sources.
Treated
Water Storage
Alternative Supplies
and Agreements
Chapter 2 System Criteria
2.3 Recycled Water Planning Criteria
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 2-8
March 2016
roadway, highways, etc. where the actual landscape irrigation area is used. Irrigation is limited to certain
periods for larger users to reduce extreme peaking that would otherwise occur with most users irrigating
in the early morning and/or late evening; this helps to limit the required size of recycled water pipes.
Recycled water rules and regulations as established by the District are included in Appendix A.
Table 2-3 Summary of Recycled Water Demand Planning Criteria
Criteria Recommended Value
Central Area Annual Demand (AF/ac)
Landscape Irrigation (Parks, schools, greenbelts, freeways, etc.) 2.41
Land Use Category Percent Irrigated
Parks, Golf Courses, Greenbelts 100%
Institutional (Schools, government, community purpose, etc.) 20%
Multi‐Family Residential 15%
Commercial 10%
Industrial 5%
Peaking Factors(2) Value
Minimum Day/Average Day Ratio N/A
Maximum Day/Average Day Ratio 2.0
Peak Hour/Average Day Ratio 6.0
Storage Value
Operating Storage 2/3 MDD
Pressure Criteria Value
Minimum Desirable 80 psi
Maximum Static (no demand) 150 psi
Minimum Static (no demand) 65 psi
Minimum Residual Pressure (Peak Hour) 40 psi
Pumping Station Criteria Value
Pumping Period(2) 16 hours
Pumping Capacity MDD
Redundancy N/A
Standby Power N/A
Pipe Criteria Value
Maximum Velocity – Maximum Day 6 fps
Maximum Velocity – Distribution (Peak Hour) 8 fps
Maximum Velocity – Transmission (Peak Hour) 5 fps
Maximum Headloss per thousand feet 10 feet
Minimum Diameter 6 inch
Hazen‐Williams “C” factor (12‐inch diameter or less) 120
Hazen‐Williams “C” factor (>12‐inch diameter) 130
(1) Peaking factors to be verified through hydraulic model water system calibration.
(2) Pumping to occur during non‐peak energy hours whenever possible.
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-1
March 2016
Chapter 3
WATER DEMANDS
3.1 Summary / Overview
Historical and projected future water demands are summarized in Table 3‐1 and Figure 3‐1 below.
Table 3-1 Demographic and Water Demand Forecast Summary
Calendar Year: 2013
(actual) 2020 2035 2050 Increase 2013-2050
Demographic Forecast (per SANDAG)
Population 212,000 245,011 284,279 307,877 95,877 45%
Employment 46,679 70,873 82,815 108,543 61,864 133%
Housing Units 62,459 71,716 82,663 90,381 27,922 45%
Demands (Total Purchases) 36,700 42,700 47,000 52,300 15,600 43%
Recycled (Central SA) 4,600 5,700 6,200 6,500 1,900 41%
Potable 32,100 37,000 40,800 45,800 13,700 43%
Per Capita Potable Demand (gpd) 135 135 128 133 ‐2 ‐2%
SB‐7 Per Capita Use Goal (gpd) ‐‐ 152 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Figure 3-1 Historical and Projected District Total Water Demands
Over the past seven years, the effects of increased conservation, increasing water prices, drought restrictions, and other factors have combined to produce a fundamental downward shift in per capita water use. The Master Plan projects future demands will be approximately one-third lower than those forecasted in the District’s previous master plan, and with potable demands not returning to their 2006 peak levels until sometime beyond 2035.
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.1 Summary / Overview
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-2
March 2016
3.1.1 Planning Perspective
The projection of future water and recycled water demands is central to the Master Plan in that the
forecast determines the capacity requirements of the District’s water and recycled water distribution
systems, and determines the quantity of supplies the District will need to serve customer demands. These
factors in turn determine the make‐up of the District’s Capital Improvement Program.
Water demand forecasts generally consider how projected changes in land use, population, employment,
and conservation levels will alter the water demands existing at the time of the forecast. Over the past 20
years, District water master plans have examined projections of higher population, higher employment,
and higher developed acreages, and have concluded that demands would continue to increase at nearly
commensurate rates. These recent projections are summarized in Table 3‐2.
Table 3-2 Water Demand Forecasts from Recent District
Master Plans
Master Plan Year Issued Planning Horizon
Projected Potable Demand Projected Recycled Demand
MGD AFY MGD AFY
2002 Buildout (2030) 56.3 63,100 8.23 9,200
2008 Buildout (2030) 54.4 60,900 9.43 10,600
2008 (2013 Update) Buildout (2030) 58.6 65,600 9.43 10,600
2015 2035
Buildout (2050)
36.4
40.9
40,800
45,800
5.50
5.81
6,200
6,500
MGD = million gallons per day, AFY = acre feet per year
In comparison, the 2015 master plan significantly recalibrates projected water demands. This recalibration
is in response to the extraordinary reductions in water demands seen during the past seven years and to
other changed conditions, as summarized later in this chapter.
3.1.2 Chapter Outline
This chapter reviews historical and current water demands, and presents the Master Plan’s projected
future condition demands through 2050 for Low, Median, and High forecast scenarios. These projected
future demand conditions are used by the Master Plan to size and schedule capital improvements for the
District’s potable and recycled water systems, as described in Chapters 5 and 6 of the report. The
projected demands will also be used by the District’s Integrated Resources Plan to size the District’s water
supply portfolio, and by its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan in addressing the planned balance of
supplies with demands.
The remainder of this chapter is organized into the following sections:
■ 3.2 Historical and Current Use
■ 3.3 Land Use and Demographic Projections
■ 3.4 Projected Potable Water Demands
■ 3.5 Projected Recycled Demands
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.2 Historical and Current Use
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-3
March 2016
3.2 Historical and Current Use
3.2.1 Historical Use and Recent Trends
For 50 years following its founding in 1956, total water
demands in the District service area trended upwards,
as lands developed and population increased. Potable
demands peaked in 2007 at almost 42,000 acre feet.
Subsequent to 2007, potable demands have declined
in response to price increases, the use of recycled
water, drought restrictions, and increased adoption of
water conservation measures. These factors have
combined to produce a fundamental downward shift
in per capita water use, with per capita potable use
declining by almost 25 percent from 2006 to 2014. Per
capita use reached a minimum during the period from
2010 to 2012, but this was in response to economic
recession, cooler than normal summer weather, and
other impermanent conditions. Considering factors of
economic equilibrium, average weather conditions,
and normal water supply conditions (without water
use restrictions in place), the Master Plan has judged
calendar year 2013 to be representative of normal
water use conditions in the current era, and has
defined calendar year 2013 water use as an
appropriate baseline condition for use in demand
forecasting. This data is summarized in Table 3 3.
3.2.2 Use by Customer Class
The District accounting system classifies five categories
of water customers:
■ Single Family Residential
■ Multi‐family Residential
■ Public/Commercial (commercial, industrial,
governmental)
■ Irrigation (park, landscape, and slope
irrigation)
■ Temporary (construction meters)
Table 3-3 Historical Potable Demands
Year Population
Potable
Purchases
(AF)
Per Capita
Use (gpcd)
1993 102,000 19,877 174
1994 106,000 21,659 182
1995 111,000 21,957 177
1996 115,000 23,218 180
1997 120,000 24,807 185
1998 120,091 22,874 170
1999 127,429 25,442 178
2000 134,686 29,901 198
2001 144,219 30,002 186
2002 154,936 35,182 203
2003 163,925 34,536 188
2004 173,279 39,579 204
2005 180,704 37,678 186
2006 186,119 41,258 198
2007 191,032 41,909 196
2008 194,791 38,045 174
2009 197,705 34,971 158
2010 200,704 31,175 139
2011 206,000 30,158 131
2012 209,000 31,268 134
2013 212,000 32,110 135
2014 216,000 33,027 137
2015 217,339 30,299 124
Potable demands peaked in 2007. Subsequently, demands have declined in response to price increases, the implementation of a recycled water system, and increased adoption of water conservation measures.
Source: 2015 UWMP for years 1998 through 2010
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.2 Historical and Current Use
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-4
March 2016
Figure 3‐2 shows the distribution of water use by customer
class, based on water sales for the period 2007‐13. Residential
uses predominate. Inclusive of a substantial share of Irrigation
uses, most of which are for residential area slopes and
common areas, residential uses make up approximately 80
percent of total District potable use.
3.2.3 Use by System Area
The District’s overall water service area spans five system areas
as shown in Figure 1‐2. The three northernmost areas – La
Presa, Hillsdale, and Regulatory – are collectively referred to as
the North District. These areas are predominantly residential,
with somewhat higher density in the La Presa area and
somewhat lower, rural residential density in the Hillsdale and
Regulatory areas. The two southernmost service areas –
Central and Otay Mesa – are collectively referred to as the
South District. The Central service area is predominantly
master‐planned residential land uses, and the Otay Mesa
service area is predominantly commercial and industrial land uses.
Water use characteristics of the different system areas are summarized in Table 3‐4. Additional detailed
Average Day Demand (ADD) data on water use characteristics by system area and pressure zone are
presented in Appendix B.
Table 3-4 Potable Water Customer Sales by Service Area and Customer Class (MGD)
Accounts / Units Calendar Years % Change
(2006) (2013) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2006-13
La Presa System
Single Family Residential 9,285 9,297 3.30 3.37 3.08 2.86 2.57 2.56 2.64 2.62 ‐21%
Multi‐Family Residential 5,219 5,246 0.93 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.87 0.88 ‐5%
Public/Commercial 290 300 0.43 0.62 0.43 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.47 0.50 15%
Irrigation 146 158 0.54 0.59 0.54 0.49 0.41 0.43 0.48 0.46 ‐16%
Temporary Meters 0 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ‐‐
Total 14,940 15,004 5.20 5.50 4.92 4.71 4.28 4.28 4.47 4.45 ‐14%
Hillsdale System
Single Family Residential 3,619 3,644 2.74 2.80 2.59 2.35 1.97 2.00 2.08 2.07 ‐24%
Multi‐Family Residential 1,066 1,066 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 ‐9%
Public/Commercial 59 62 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.17 5%
Irrigation 81 83 0.75 0.82 0.79 0.63 0.35 0.31 0.35 0.37 ‐51%
Temporary Meters 2 4 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 33%
Total 4,827 4,859 3.84 3.99 3.73 3.30 2.62 2.62 2.77 2.79 ‐27%
Residential uses comprise more than 70 percent of district water use.
Figure 3-2 Distribution of Potable
Use by Customer Class (Sales)
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.2 Historical and Current Use
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-5
March 2016
Table 3-4 Potable Water Customer Sales by Service Area and Customer Class (MGD)
Accounts / Units Calendar Years % Change
(2006) (2013) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2006-13
Regulatory System
Single Family Residential 1,773 1,781 1.27 1.31 1.19 1.06 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.92 ‐28%
Multi‐Family Residential 286 286 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 28%
Public/Commercial 98 102 0.23 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.16 ‐31%
Irrigation 28 30 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.10 ‐19%
Temporary Meters 3 6 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 25%
Total 2,188 2,205 1.66 1.70 1.49 1.34 1.09 1.12 1.20 1.22 ‐26%
Central System
Single Family Residential 25,549 26,725 11.43 11.69 11.05 10.18 9.24 9.42 9.57 9.75 ‐15%
Multi‐Family Residential 13,300 15,185 1.96 2.42 2.31 2.26 2.18 2.23 2.31 2.50 27%
Public/Commercial 566 605 3.28 2.27 1.26 1.27 1.21 1.31 1.43 1.37 ‐58%
Irrigation 562 603 2.34 2.51 2.43 1.99 1.62 1.72 1.87 1.93 ‐18%
Temporary Meters 5 37 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.11 191%
Total 39,982 43,155 19.05 18.92 17.08 15.73 14.29 14.73 15.25 15.64 ‐18%
Otay Mesa System
Single Family Residential 18 16 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 ‐31%
Multi‐Family Residential 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ‐‐
Public/Commercial 345 393 1.82 2.03 1.84 1.96 1.54 1.79 1.96 2.08 14%
Irrigation 250 291 0.62 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.50 0.59 0.65 0.63 2%
Temporary Meters 24 36 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 34%
Total 637 736 2.48 2.71 2.50 2.63 2.07 2.42 2.65 2.75 11%
Total District
Single Family Residential 40,245 41,464 18.74 19.19 17.92 16.45 14.64 14.84 15.21 15.35 ‐18%
Multi‐Family Residential 19,871 21,783 3.10 3.54 3.37 3.31 3.22 3.26 3.37 3.58 15%
Public/Commercial 1,361 1,472 5.93 5.31 3.84 4.01 3.46 3.83 4.18 4.30 ‐27%
Irrigation 1,067 1,165 4.39 4.70 4.51 3.85 2.98 3.15 3.47 3.49 ‐20%
Temporary Meters 34 86 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.16 106%
Total 62,578 65,970 32.24 32.81 29.73 27.71 24.36 25.17 26.33 26.89 ‐17%
Notes: Data derived from District billing system data. The multi‐family residential unit count is for total housing units, per the
SALES file. See Appendix B for additional detailed descriptions of the data and data sources.
3.2.4 Seasonal Variation / Monthly Peaking Factors
Water use in the District varies seasonally due to the seasonal nature of landscape irrigation demands.
Irrigation demands are low during the winter months, and peak during the consistently dry summer
months. Demands during the springtime months exhibit the greatest year‐to‐year variability,
corresponding with variability in springtime precipitation levels.
Recent historical seasonal demand variation and monthly peaking factors are summarized in Table 3‐5.
Additional detailed data are presented in Appendix B.
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.2 Historical and Current Use
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-6
March 2016
Table 3-5 Potable System Monthly Peaking Factors
Total District Purchases (MGD) Total District Purchases - Monthly Peaking Factor
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Avg.
Jan 30.4 19.9 18.9 20.0 20.7 23.3 19.1 0.87 0.61 0.64 0.76 0.77 0.84 0.67 0.74
Feb 23.4 19.3 22.9 16.3 19.8 20.4 20.2 0.67 0.59 0.78 0.62 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.69
Mar 30.2 28.2 26.0 20.0 18.8 20.1 23.6 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.76 0.70 0.72 0.82 0.80
Apr 33.6 35.3 28.8 21.7 24.6 23.7 29.1 0.96 1.08 0.98 0.83 0.91 0.85 1.02 0.95
May 40.1 36.8 32.4 30.0 30.3 28.9 30.7 1.14 1.12 1.10 1.14 1.13 1.04 1.07 1.11
Jun 41.7 40.0 31.5 33.5 32.8 33.9 35.0 1.19 1.22 1.07 1.28 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.20
Jul 44.4 43.4 36.8 35.1 36.3 35.5 35.2 1.26 1.32 1.25 1.34 1.35 1.28 1.23 1.29
Aug 45.7 42.1 38.0 36.0 36.3 36.1 36.3 1.30 1.29 1.29 1.37 1.35 1.30 1.27 1.31
Sep 40.1 39.6 36.6 34.4 32.6 35.0 36.3 1.14 1.21 1.25 1.31 1.21 1.26 1.27 1.23
Oct 37.4 37.2 31.8 23.5 29.0 30.2 30.2 1.06 1.13 1.08 0.89 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.06
Nov 31.8 31.9 29.3 23.3 20.5 27.3 25.8 0.90 0.97 1.00 0.89 0.76 0.98 0.90 0.91
Dec 21.9 19.4 19.2 20.3 20.9 19.3 22.0 0.62 0.59 0.65 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.77 0.70
Year 35.1 32.8 29.4 26.2 26.9 27.8 28.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Note: Data per SDCWA monthly delivery reports
Monthly peaking factors have gradually moderated during the past 30 years as the District service area
has developed and as outdoor water use as a percentage of total use has declined. As detailed later in this
chapter, the Master Plan projects this moderating trend will continue throughout the planning horizon.
3.2.5 Unaccounted-For Water (Non-Revenue Water)
In reporting water use data, the District distinguishes between water purchases, which is the volume of
water delivered into the distribution system, and water sales, which is the volume of water recorded by
customer meters and billed as sales. Not all water delivered to the system is recorded as sales, and this
difference is known as unaccounted‐for water, or non‐revenue water. Unaccounted‐for water results
primarily from under‐registering water meters, and also includes leaks in the distribution system and fire
hydrant uses for firefighting and main flushing. Average unaccounted‐for water in the District service area
is five percent. This is a low level by industry standards, and reflects and well‐designed and maintained
system.
Detailed data on unaccounted‐for water use is presented in Appendix B.
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.3 Land Use and Demographic Projections
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-7
March 2016
3.3 Land Use and Demographic Projections
3.3.1 Land Use
Land Use Jurisdictions / Adopted Land Use
The District’s boundaries and service areas are shown in Figures 1‐1 and 1‐2. The District boundaries
encompass several land use jurisdictions: the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista, a portion of the
City of San Diego on Otay Mesa, and various unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of the County of
San Diego, including Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, and eastern Otay Mesa. Development
within each of these areas is governed by the adopted general plans, community plans, and other land
use plans of the controlling jurisdiction. The land use and demographic projections utilized by the Master
Plan as the basis for water demand projections and system planning are fully consistent with the adopted
land uses specified in these plans.
Area of Influence
The District’s water service area boundaries encompass 125.5 square miles of land. An additional
11 square miles (see Figure 1‐2) on the District’s eastern flank are designated by the San Diego Local Area
Formation Commission (LAFCO) as being within the District’s Area of Influence (AOI) (also known as
Sphere of Influence, or SOI), but outside its current active service area. Some of these lands to the east
are outside the imported water service areas of SDCWA and MWD and would require annexation into
those agencies as a condition of water service.
Consistent with the LAFCO AOI designation, the Master Plan accounts for projected development within
the AOI to the extent consistent with adopted land use plans and to the extent these lands are expected
to annex into the District. These areas include the Otay Ranch Villages 13 and 14, and the San Ysidro
Mountain Ranch / Planning Area 17 area, all as shown in Figure 1‐2. The AOI also includes the Sycuan
Indian Reservation, located to the northeast of the District boundary, but these lands are not included in
the demand forecast due to the apparent preference of Sycuan to annex to the Padre Dam Municipal
Water District (PDMWD) rather than to the District.
Major Development Areas and Land Plans
Remaining developable lands in the District are concentrated in the Central and Otay Mesa service areas.
Development in a majority of these areas is controlled by the following adopted land use plans:
■ Otay Ranch General Development Plan: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan was adopted
jointly by the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego in 1993 to guide the development
of nearly 23,000 acres east of Interstate 805 and south of Telegraph Canyon Road. The plan area
comprises a majority of the District’s Central system area. A subsequent General Plan update by
the City in 2005 resulted in modest modifications to the original plan, including provisions for the
City’s proposed University site and density transfers within some of the planned areas.
■ Otay Mesa Community Plan: In 2014 the City of San Diego adopted a new Otay Mesa Community
plan to guide development within the western portion of Otay Mesa. The new plan modifies
previously planned commercial and industrial land uses, and adds multi‐family residential land
uses to the mix of planned development.
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.3 Land Use and Demographic Projections
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-8
March 2016
■ The County of San Diego 2020 General Plan Update and the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Update
Additional detailed data on land use plans and individual planned development projects are presented in
Appendix C.
3.3.2 Population, Housing, and Employment Projections
The Master Plan has utilized the most recent growth and demographic forecast prepared by SANDAG. This
forecast is known as Series 13 in SANDAG’s history of regional growth plans and forecasts. The Series 13
forecast is based on regional demographic and economic forecasts, and on the adopted land use plans of
the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and each of the other land use
jurisdictions within the District service area. Additional information on the forecast and SANDAG’s
forecast methodologies are available at the SANDAG website, www.SANDAG.org.
The District worked with SANDAG to obtain custom data reports for the District service area as a whole,
and for each of the five system areas and 26 pressure zones within the overall service area. Forecast data
by system area is summarized in Table 3‐6. Additional detailed data are presented in Appendix C.
The SANDAG forecast indicates the District service area will continue to grow throughout the forecast
horizon, with population projected to increase 50 percent by 2050, and employment more than doubling
over the same period. The following notes characterize key aspects of the SANDAG forecast relative to
water demand forecasts:
■ North District Trends: Compared to the remainder of the District service area, population in the
three North District service areas will increase by 18 percent and employment increasing by
45 percent. These modest increases are consistent with the more built‐out level of development
in these areas, as relative to adopted land use.
■ Central Service Area Trends: The Central service area will see the largest share of the projected
growth, with population increasing by 50 percent and employment by 166 percent. These
significant increases are consistent with the adopted land uses of the City of Chula Vista (through
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan) and of the County of San Diego.
■ Otay Mesa Service Area Trends: The Otay Mesa service area will undergo significant growth, with
population almost quadrupling and employment more than doubling. These significant increases
are consistent with the adopted land uses of the City of San Diego (through the newly updated
Otay Mesa Community Plan) and of the County of San Diego (through the East Otay Mesa Specific
Plan).
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.3 Land Use and Demographic Projections
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-9
March 2016
Table 3-6 SANDAG Series 13 Growth Forecast Data for District
Se
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
Ye
a
r
To
t
a
l
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
o
u
p
Qu
a
r
t
e
r
s
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
Si
n
g
l
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
Mu
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
Un
i
t
s
Mo
b
i
l
e
Ho
m
e
U
n
i
t
s
To
t
a
l
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
PP
H
(H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
No
r
t
h
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ar
e
a
La
Pr
e
s
a
2012 43,214 42,935 279 14,674 10,104 3,658 912 5,738 2.93
2020 43,437 43,201 236 `14,816 10,375 3,529 912 8,364 2.92
2035 45,914 45,595 319 15,484 11,338 3,234 912 9,192 2.94
2050 50,846 50,591 255 17,119 12,976 3,231 912 10,230 2.96
% Increase 18% 18% ‐9%17%28%‐12%0% 78%1%
Hi
l
l
s
d
a
l
e
2012 13,765 13,731 34 4,817 3,942 774 101 4,617 2.85
2020 14,027 14,001 26 4,828 3,954 773 101 4,486 2.90
2035 14,845 14,803 42 5,078 4,203 774 101 4,490 2.92
2050 15,358 15,306 52 5,285 4,411 773 101 4,490 2.90
% Increase 12% 11% 53%10%12%0%0% ‐3%2%
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
2012 6,530 6,505 25 2,204 1,941 245 18 2,222 2.95
2020 7,040 7,026 14 2,340 2,077 245 18 2,653 3.00
2035 7,799 7,776 23 2,557 2,294 245 18 3,025 3.04
2050 8,996 8,965 31 2,925 2,679 244 2 3,515 3.06
% Increase 38% 38% 24%33%38%0%‐89% 58%4%
To
t
a
l
No
r
t
h
Ar
e
a
2012 63,509 63,171 338 21,695 15,987 4,677 1,031 12,577 2.91
2020 64,504 64,228 276 21,984 16,406 4,547 1,031 15,503 2.92
2035 68,558 68,174 384 23,119 17,835 4,253 1,031 16,707 2.95
2050 75,200 74,862 338 25,329 20,066 4,248 1,015 18,235 2.96
% Increase 18% 19% 0%17%26%‐9%‐2% 45%2%
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ar
e
a
2012 135,488 135,386 102 40,741 29,869 10,675 197 20,008 3.32
2020 167,700 167,622 78 49,709 31,975 17,536 197 38,089 3.37
2035 191,586 191,452 134 56,490 34,867 21,426 197 45,000 3.39
2050 202,948 202,775 173 60,472 36,567 23,708 197 53,244 3.35
% Increase 50% 50% 70%48%22%122%0% 166%1%
Ot
a
y
Me
s
a
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ar
e
a
2012 6,196 122 6,074 25 23 ‐ ‐ 14,094 4.88
2020 12,807 124 12,683 24 24 ‐ ‐ 17,281 5.17
2035 24,135 11,412 12,723 3,054 267 2,787 ‐ 21,108 3.74
2050 29,729 16,978 12,751 4,580 289 4,291 ‐ 37,064 3.71
% Increase 380% 13816% 110%18220%1157% 163%‐24%
To
t
a
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
2012 205,193 198,679 6,514 62,461 45,879 15,352 1,228 46,679 3.18
2020 245,011 231,974 13,037 71,717 48,405 22,083 1,228 70,873 3.23
2035 284,279 271,038 13,241 82,663 52,969 28,466 1,228 82,815 3.28
2050 307,877 294,615 13,262 90,381 56,922 32,247 1,212 108,543 3.26
% Increase 50% 48% 104%45%24%110%‐1% 133%2%
Notes: Percentage increase data is for the range from 2012 to 2050. SANDAG categorizes population into Household population, and Group
Quarters, with the latter category including college residence halls, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes,
military barracks, and correctional facilities. Housing units are subdivided into Single Family Residential, Multi‐family Residential, and Mobile
Home units. PPH = persons per household.
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.4 Projected Potable Water Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-10
March 2016
3.4 Projected Potable Water Demands
3.4.1 Approach / Methodology
The 2015 Master Plan forecasts future water demands using existing demands as a base, and scales these
based on the net effects of growth, conservation, and other factors. The forecast methodology is outlined
below. Additional detailed information on forecast methodology is presented in Appendix B.
a) Existing baseline unit demands. The Master Plan
uses actual unit use factors for calendar year 2013 as
the baseline normal condition demands for the
forecast period. 2013 demands are sufficiently
distant from the Water Use Alert conditions in effect
in most of the County during 2009‐10. Year 2013 was
moderately dryer than normal.
b) New development. New development demands are
generated using the baseline unit use factors, and the
SANDAG Draft Series 13 projections for the District at
the pressure zone level of spatial resolution.
■ Residential: Single family residential and multi‐
family residential usage is scaled upwards
proportionate to housing unit counts for each
category, and adjusted for projected changes in
persons per household rates.
■ Public / Commercial: Commercial, industrial, and
governmental usage is scaled upwards from
existing use proportionate to employment projections.
■ Irrigation: Usage is scaled upward as a weighted average of the change in single family
residential and multi‐family residential and public/commercial usage.
■ Temporary Meters: Temporary account usage is custom entered to reflect levels consistent
with the building activity reflected in the S.13 forecasts, based on past Temporary account
usage from 2000 to 2007.
c) Reduced demands due to additional conservation efficiencies and other factors. The Master
Plan projects unit use rates will continue to decline over time in response to increased water rates,
conservation education, and shifting landscape preferences. These factors are summarized in
Table 3‐7, and further detailed and quantified in Appendix B.
Forecast Methodology Summary
a) Existing Baseline Demands
+
b) New Development Demands
‐
c) Reductions Due to Additional
Conservation Efficiencies
=
FUTURE DEMANDS
Demand forecast components. The forecast methodology starts with existing baseline demands, and adjusts for growth from new development, and for changes in per account usage due to conservation efficiencies and other effects.
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.4 Projected Potable Water Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-11
March 2016
Table 3-7 Summary of Unit Use Adjustment Factors
Factors Driving Unit Use Reductions
Landscape Ordinances As required by State law, as of 2010 all land use jurisdictions have adopted landscape
ordinances limiting new landscape construction water use to 70% evapotranspiration (ET), and
limiting turf utilization in commercial, industrial, and streetscape uses. As a result, new
construction in the District will feature less grass, and be lower water using in comparison to
pre‐2010 construction.
Weather‐Based Irrigation
Controllers
Newer landscape irrigation controllers can automatically adjust irrigation schedules consistent
with actual climate conditions and plant water needs, reducing unnecessary use due to over‐
irrigation. The use of these controllers will become increasingly common during the planning
horizon.
Turf Retirement MWD and SDCWA are providing financial incentives to customers who replace grass with low
water use landscapes, and customer landscape preferences are shifting away from turf.
Existing residential landscapes in the District service area are dominated by grass; over the
course of the planning horizon this will begin to shift as customers opt to remove turf.
High‐efficiency clothes
washers
Newer clothes washing machines, in particular front‐loading versions, are more water efficient
than older traditional‐style washers.
High‐efficiency toilets California regulations enacted in 2011 require new toilets to operate with a maximum of 1.28
gallons per flush, compared to 1.6 gallons per foot per the previous 1992 requirements. This
will reduce water use at new SFR and MFR construction.
MFR Submetering Future MFR construction will be subject to requirements that individual units be submetered
and billed by usage. The direct price signal to the consumer results in reduced water use.
Increasing Real Prices /
Behavioral Changes
Retail water rates may continue to increase at a rate faster than inflation, driven by increases
in wholesale rates. Customers respond by reducing use.
Factors Driving Unit Use Increases
Growth located in warmer
inland areas
New development in the District is moving further and further inland. The warmer climate of
inland areas results in increased unit irrigation demands.
The average ETo rate for the geographic center of the District is approximately 47 inches (per
CIMIS station data, see SD County Landscape Design Manual, Ap. A). The average ETo at the
eastern edge of the District at Lower Otay Reservoir is 50 inches, 6% higher than the
geographic center.
Climate Change Per SDCWA’s most recent climate change analysis (2013 Water Facilities Master Plan,
Appendix E), the median predicted climate change will increase average ETo in the District
service area 1.9% by 2035, and approximately 3% by 2050.
3.4.2 Projected Potable Demands
Water demands in the District service area will increase over time relative to existing demands, but at a
slower rate than the underlying growth in population and employment. The Master Plan projects future
demands will be approximately one‐third lower than those forecasted in the District’s previous master
plan, and that potable demands will not again reach their 2006 peak levels until sometime beyond 2035.
Historical and projected future water demands are summarized in Figure 3‐3, and Table 3‐8 below. Table
3‐9 summarizes the median potable forecast by system area, District, and customer class. Additional
detailed forecast data and documentation are presented in Appendix B.
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.4 Projected Potable Water Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-12
March 2016
Table 3-8 Demographic and Water Demand Forecast Summary
Calendar Year: 2013 (actual) 2020 2035 2050 Increase 2013-2050
Demographic Forecast
Population 212,000 245,011 284,279 307,877 95,877 45%
Employment 46,679 70,873 82,815 108,543 61,864 133%
Housing Units 62,459 71,716 82,663 90,381 27,922 45%
Potable Demands (Total
Purchases)
32,100 37,000 40,800 45,800 13,700 43%
Single Family Residential 18,400 18,700 19,600 20,000 1,600 9%
Multi‐family Residential 4,200 6,100 7,200 7,700 3,500 83%
Public/Commercial 5,100 7,200 8,500 11,900 6,800 133%
Irrigation 4,200 4,500 5,000 5,700 1,500 36%
Temporary 200 500 500 500 300 150%
Per Capita Potable Demand (gpd) 135 135 128 133 ‐2 ‐2%
SB‐7 Per Capita Use Goal (gpd) ‐‐ 152 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Figure 3-3 Projected Potable Water Demands
Note: The District has elected to use the MEDIAN forecast for Master Planning and Capital Improvements
and will use the LOW forecast for supply planning.
OWD Historical and Projected Potable Water Purchases (AF/yr)
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
De
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
in
AF
/
y
r
Calendar Year
2008 WRMP
SB‐7 Target Maximum
Projected HIGH
Projected MEDIAN
Projected LOW
Historical Deliveries
2015 UWMP
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.4 Projected Potable Water Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-13
March 2016
Table 3-9 Median Potable Forecast by System Area, District, and Customer Class
Actual 2013
(AFY) 2020 (AFY) 2035 (AFY) 2050 (AFY)
% Change vs. 2013
2020 2035 2050
La Presa System
Single Family Res 3,100 3,100 3,200 3,500 0%3% 13%
Multi‐family Res 1,000 1,000 900 900 0%‐10% ‐10%
Public/Commercial 600 800 900 1,000 33%50% 67%
Irrigation 500 600 600 600 20%20% 20%
Temporary Meters 0 0 0 0
Total 5,200 5,500 5,600 6,000 6%8% 15%
Hillsdale System
Single Family Res 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 0%0% 0%
Multi‐family Res 200 200 200 200 0%0% 0%
Public/Commercial 200 200 200 200 0%0% 0%
Irrigation 400 400 400 500 0%0% 25%
Temporary Meters 0 0 0 0
Total 3,300 3,200 3,200 3,200 ‐3%‐3% ‐3%
Regulatory System
Single Family Res 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,300 0%9% 18%
Multi‐family Res 0 0 0 0
Public/Commercial 200 200 200 300 0%0% 50%
Irrigation 100 100 100 200 0%0% 100%
Temporary Meters 0 0 0 0
Total 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,800 7%14% 29%
Central System
Single Family Res 11,500 12,000 12,500 12,500 4%9% 9%
Multi‐family Res 2,900 4,600 5,500 5,900 59%90% 103%
Public/Commercial 1,600 3,000 3,500 4,100 88%119% 156%
Irrigation 2,300 2,400 2,700 2,800 4%17% 22%
Temporary Meters 100 200 200 200
Total 18,400 22,300 24,500 25,500 21%33% 39%
Otay Mesa System
Single Family Res 0 0 100 100
Multi‐family Res 0 0 500 800
Public/Commercial 2,400 2,900 3,600 6,200 21%50% 158%
Irrigation 700 900 1,000 1,700 29%43% 143%
Temporary Meters 0 200 200 200
Total 3,200 4,100 5,400 9,000 28%69% 181%
North District
Single Family Res 6,600 6,600 6,800 7,100 0%3% 8%
Multi‐family Res 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,100 ‐8%‐15% ‐15%
Public/Commercial 1,000 1,200 1,300 1,500 20%30% 50%
Irrigation 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,200 0%9% 9%
Temporary Meters 0 100 100 100
Total 10,000 10,200 10,500 11,000 2%5% 10%
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.4 Projected Potable Water Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-14
March 2016
Table 3-9 Median Potable Forecast by System Area, District, and Customer Class
Actual 2013
(AFY) 2020 (AFY) 2035 (AFY) 2050 (AFY)
% Change vs. 2013
2020 2035 2050
South District
Single Family Res 11,500 12,100 12,600 12,600 5%10% 10%
Multi‐family Res 2,900 4,600 6,100 6,800 59%110% 134%
Public/Commercial 4,100 5,900 7,000 10,300 44%71% 151%
Irrigation 3,000 3,300 3,800 4,500 10%27% 50%
Temporary Meters 200 400 400 400 100%100% 100%
Total 21,700 26,300 29,900 34,500 21%38% 59%
Total District
Single Family Res 18,100 18,600 19,400 19,700 3%7% 9%
Multi‐family Res 4,200 5,900 7,200 7,900 40%71% 88%
Public/Commercial 5,000 7,200 8,400 11,700 44%68% 134%
Irrigation 4,100 4,400 4,900 5,800 7%20% 41%
Temporary Meters 200 500 500 500 150%150% 150%
Total 31,600 36,600 40,300 45,500 16%28% 44%
Notes: The table presents forecasted demands calculated at the system level of spatial resolution. The official forecast,
detailed in the appendix materials, calculates demands at the pressure zone level. The more precise pressure zone approach
results in variations in reported aggregate demands by up to approximately one percent.
Reviewing the forecast data in Table 3‐9, the Master Plan projects water demands in the North District
areas will remain relatively flat throughout the forecast period, despite increasing population and
employment as reviewed previously. Most of the demand growth projected for the District as a whole will
occur in the South District areas, as lands within these areas develop consistent with adopted land use
plans.
3.4.3 Forecast Envelope – Alternative Demand Futures
As depicted in Figure 3‐3, the Master Plan forecast includes a planning envelope to account for the
possibility that future demand conditions will develop differently than envisioned by the median demand
forecast. The forecast variables used to create the envelope, and to define High and Low forecasts to
bracket the Median forecast, are summarized in Table 3‐10 below.
Table 3-10 Forecast Variables for Low, Median, and High Forecast Ranges
Planning Variable Low Median High
Baseline water demand Per 2013 actual demands Per 2013 actual demands Per 2008 actual demands
Growth Forecast Growth rate reduced 20%
from SANDAG S.13
Per SANDAG S.13 Per SANDAG S.13
Area of Influence Lands Included Included Included
Conservation Factors At 1.5x default levels At default levels At 0.5x default levels
Upon careful review, the District has elected to use the Median forecast as the planning basis for the
Master Plan and its related Capital Improvement Plan, exclusive of supply planning. For supply planning
purposes, and in particular the consideration of a water purchase agreement for a new water supply (see
Chapter 4), the District has elected to use the Low forecast.
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.4 Projected Potable Water Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-15
March 2016
3.4.4 Seasonal Peaking Forecast
Maximum month peaking factors have gradually moderated during the past 30 years as the District service
area has developed and as outdoor water use as a percentage of total use has declined. The Master Plan
projects this moderating trend will continue throughout the planning horizon, as summarized below in
Table 3‐11. Minimum month peaking factors are also included in Table 3‐11. Additional detailed
information on peaking factor trends is included in Appendix B.
Table 3-11 Projected Maximum Month Peaking Factors
Area 2013 2020 2035 2050
North District 1.35 1.33 1.30 1.28
South District 1.29 1.26 1.24 1.21
Total District 1.31 1.28 1.26 1.23
Table 3-12 Projected Minimum Month Peaking Factors
Area 2013 2020 2035 2050
North District 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.70
South District 0.72 0.75 0.77 0.80
Total District 0.69 0.72 0.74 0.77
3.4.5 Possible Loss of Recycled Supply
The District obtains most of its supply of recycled water from the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water
Reclamation Plant, under the terms of a purchase agreement set to expire in 2026. The District assumes
it will be able to renew or renegotiate the agreement to extend the term far into the future.
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.5 Projected Recycled Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-16
March 2016
3.5 Projected Recycled Demands
The Master Plan has projected recycled water demands using methodologies similar to those described
previously for the potable demand forecasts. The recycled demand forecast is based on the assumption
that recycled water service will be available only in the Central system area, as reviewed in Chapter 1 for
the baseline planning assumptions.
Within the Central system area, the forecast assumes that almost all new development will utilize recycled
water for irrigation uses, with the only exceptions being those areas that are within the drainage basin of
the Sweetwater Lower Otay Reservoir and therefore not allowed to use recycle water. The forecast
assumes those existing irrigation meters currently on the potable system will remain as potable demands
and not convert to recycled service, consistent with the District’s experience with the high costs of
retrofitting customer systems for recycled use. Consequently, the forecast does not include potable sales
through central area irrigation meters which accounted for 1.93 MGD (2,200 AFY) in calendar year 2013.
Projected recycled water demands are presented in Table 3‐13 and Figure 3‐3 below. Additional detailed
information is included in Appendix B.
Table 3-13 Projected Recycled Water Demand
2013 Baseline Central System
Irrigation
2013
(actual) 2020 2035 2050
Increase
2013-2050
Projected Total (Sales +5%) MGD 4.13 5.05 5.50 5.81 41%
AFY 4,600 5,700 6,200 6,500 41%
MGD = million gallons per day, AFY = acre feet per year
Figure 3-4 Projected Recycled Water Demands
OWD Historical and Projected Recycled Water Production/Purchases (AF/yr)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
De
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
in
AF
/
y
r
Calendar Year
2008 WRMP
Projected
Historical Purchases/Production
2015 UWMP
Chapter 3 Water Demands
3.5 Projected Recycled Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 3-17
March 2016
The availability of recycled water from the District’s main source, the South Bay Water Reclamation
Plant (SBWRP) has recently averaged less than the take or pay agreement that the City and the District
have in place for 6 MGD. The District and other water agencies have been pushing the City to complete
projects that will direct additional wastewater flow to the SBWRP and increase reliability of the recycled
water supply it produces.
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.5 References
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 1-11
March 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-1
March 2016
Chapter 4
WATER SUPPLY
4.1 Overview
The District’s historical dependence on
imported water from MWD and SDCWA as
the main source of supply has made it
challenging to meet water demands reliably
and cost‐effectively over time, especially in
protracted dry‐weather periods. As a part of
its far‐sighted efforts to provide water supply
reliability and rate stability for its existing and
future customers, the District completed an
IRP in 2007 and a 2015 update which
examined potential future supply options
and their performance with regard to long‐
term, comprehensive water resource
objectives. The IRP identifies potential alternative supply resources to meet the District’s water supply
objectives, while allowing flexibility in adapting to anticipated changes in the water industry, market and
regulatory conditions. Out of the 2007 IRP emerged the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System
Project (OMCDSP), which is proposed to convey desalinated seawater from a connection point at the
U.S./Mexico border. A proposed treatment plant in Rosarito Beach, Baja California, Mexico, will produce
the desalinated seawater. This imported desalinated seawater supply, when coupled with the SDCWA
supply as backup, significantly improves reliability. The water supply summary for the District assuming
the implementation of OMCDSP is shown in Table 4‐1 and Figure 4‐1.
Table 4-1 Supply Summary for Normal-Year Conditions, 2013-2050 (AFY)
2013 2020 2035 2050 Increase 2013-2050
DEMANDS – Total 36,100 42,400 46,600 52,000 15,900 44%
SUPPLIES – Total 36,100 42,400 46,600 52,000 15,900 44%
Potable 31,700 37,000 40,700 45,800 14,100 44%
‐‐ Rosarito Desalination 0 0 21,000 23,000 23,000 ‐‐
‐‐ SDCWA 31,700 37,000 19,700 22,800 ‐8,900 ‐28%
Recycled 4,400 5,400 5,900 6,200 1,800 41%
‐‐ San Diego, SBWRP 4,070 5,070 5,570 5,870 1,800 44%
‐‐ Ralph W. Chapman WRF 330 330 330 330 0 0%
AFY = acre feet per year
The District is pursuing a desalinated seawater supply from Rosarito Beach, Baja California, Mexico. The project could reduce the District’s reliance on supplies from SDCWA, and will require modifications to the District’s water distribution system to accommodate the introduction of supply at a new location.
The District would continue to rely on backup supplies from both SDCWA and the City of San Diego’s Otay Water Treatment Plant. Also, the master plan assumes the District will renew its recycled water purchase agreement with the City of San Diego, providing a continued supply of recycled water to the expanding District’s Central Service Area.
Should the Mexico supply not develop as planned, the District would continue its primary reliance on SDCWA supply in the short term, and reconsider various other supply opportunities summarized here.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-2
March 2016
Figure 4-1 Supply Summary for Normal-Year Conditions, 2013-2050
This chapter of the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan describes the District’s present portfolio of potable
water supply sources, and its adopted strategies now being implemented to further diversify its sources
to enhance reliability and flexibility. Recycled water supply sources are discussed as a part of the strategy
to reduce potable demands and the associated supply and to maximize the District’s unique opportunity
with Developer‐driven expansions of its existing recycled water system. Water supply reliability is
discussed in Chapter 5 as a part of the Storage and Pumping Analysis/Service Reliability.
This Water Supply chapter is organized into the following sections:
■ 4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought Conditions
■ 4.3 Current Portfolio of Potable Water Sources
■ 4.4 Baseline Supply Conditions
■ 4.5 Possible Future Supplies
■ 4.6 References
4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought
Conditions
This section discusses the condition of the two main supplies of water for MWD and SDCWA, the
wholesalers who currently supply the District and the effect on firm supplies and the District’s abilities to
contract for new water supplies. We start with the overall condition of the California State Water Project
(SWP) and the Colorado River, the supplies, demands, and regulatory processes underway, and then move
on to discuss the current drought and the Colorado River shortage level. This section provides background
and a perspective for the District’s selection of the mix of supplies in the future portfolio.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2013 2020 2035 2050
An
n
u
a
l
Su
p
p
l
y
(A
c
r
e
‐Fe
e
t
)
Recycled
SDCWA
Desal
Reduced reliance on supplies from SDCWA. Overall supplies will increase to match demands, although not until 2035 are total demands and supplies projected to potentially reach the levels previously seen in 2005-2007. The District’s implementation of its Otay Mesa Conveyance Facilities, as part of its planned purchase of water from the Rosarito Desalination project could reduce its reliance on supplies purchased from SDCWA.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-3
March 2016
4.2.1 Imported Supplies
Currently the District obtains 100 percent of its potable water supply from the SDCWA, of which it is one
of 24 member agencies. The SDCWA in turn obtains most of its water through facilities owned by the
MWD, which in turn obtains its water from northern California via the SWP, and from the Colorado River
via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA).
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWD was formed in 1928 to develop, store, and provide wholesale distribution of supplemental water in
southern California for domestic and municipal purposes. MWD is a consortium of 26 cities and water
agencies, including the SDCWA. It obtains supplies from the Colorado River via the CRA, which it owns and
operates, and from northern California via the SWP. MWD’s main sources of supply are shown in
Figure 4‐2.
MWD’s plans for providing supply reliability to its member agencies are summarized in its 2015 IRP and
its 2015 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP). MWD’s supply reliability goal, as embodied
in both these plans, is to provide, in coordination with its member agencies, a mix of imported and local
supplies and conservation programs that will provide 100 percent reliability for all full‐service demand
customers in its service area.
The IRP and RUWMP include a planning buffer to mitigate against planning uncertainties, such as the risk
that planned local supply projects may not all be implemented as forecast, or that future demands will be
higher than forecast. The planning buffer identifies an additional increment of water that could be
developed if needed. The planning buffer is intended to ensure that the southern California region,
including the SDCWA and its member agencies, will have adequate water supplies to meet future
demands. .
San Diego County Water Authority
The SDCWA is one of 26 member agencies of MWD. The SDCWA is MWD’s largest member agency in
terms of purchases, having purchased approximately 20 percent of all the water MWD delivered in fiscal
year 2013‐14. The SDCWA delivers treated and raw water into San Diego County through five large
diameter pipelines, located in two principal corridors known as the First and Second San Diego Aqueducts.
These are shown in Figure 4‐3.
The SDCWA was formed in 1944 by the California Legislature to provide a supplemental supply of water
as the San Diego region’s civilian and military populations expanded to meet wartime activity needs.
Today, the SDCWA has 24 member agencies and supplies between 75 to 95 percent of the water needs
of its service area.
The SDCWA 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) provides for a comprehensive planning
analysis at a regional level and includes water use associated with accelerated forecasted development
as part of its municipal and industrial sector demand projections. As documented in the Water Authority’s
2015 UWMP, the Water Authority is planning to meet future and existing demands which include the
demand increment associated with accelerated forecasted growth. The Water Authority will assist its
member agencies in tracking the environmental documents provided by the agencies that include water
supply assessments and verifications reports that utilize the accelerated forecasted growth demand
increment to demonstrate supplies for the development are available to meet growth demands.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-4
March 2016
Figure 4‐2 MWD Sources of Supply
MWD obtains its water supplies from two sources. One is the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct, which MWD owns and operates, and is shown in black toward the bottom of the map. The other is the State Water Project, owned and operated by the California Department of Water Resources, and to which MWD holds the largest contract for supply.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-5
March 2016
Figure 4-3 Delivering Water to the District
The exhibit shows the SDCWA system as it enters San Diego County. The District receives treated water from
the Second Aqueduct Pipeline 4 which extends south to Lower Otay Reservoir.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-6
March 2016
To reduce its dependency on MWD and diversify its supplies, the SDCWA in recent years has undertaken
several initiatives, including the following:
■ Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Water Purchase Agreement: To further help diversify regional
supplies, the SDCWA has entered into a Water Purchase Agreement under which it agrees to
purchase up to 56,000 acre feet per year (AFY) of desalinated water from Poseidon Resources,
Inc. The plant became operational in 2015.
■ Imperial Irrigation District Transfer: The SDCWA signed a Water Conservation and Transfer
Agreement with Imperial Irrigation District (IID) in 1998. Through the transfer agreement, the
SDCWA is purchasing water from IID at volumes that will gradually increase year‐to‐year, reaching
200,000 AFY in 2021. The water is physically delivered to San Diego via MWD’s Colorado River
Aqueduct.
■ All‐American and Coachella Canal Lining Conserved Water: In 2003, as part of the execution of
the Quantification Settlement Agreement on the Colorado River, the SDCWA was assigned rights
to 77,700 AFY of conserved water from projects to line the All‐American and Coachella Canals.
These projects are now complete and the SDCWA is receiving this water. As with the IID transfer
water, the water is physically delivered to San Diego via MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct.
■ Water Transfer and Banking Programs: In addition to the above, the SDCWA has entered into
water transfer and water banking arrangements with Central Valley area agricultural agencies and
groundwater storage interests. These projects are designed to make additional water available to
the SDCWA during dry‐year supply shortages from MWD.
4.2.2 State Water Project – Background and Status of
Regulatory Processes
It is estimated that 96 out of 100 Californians get some or all of their water supply from Sierra Nevada
Mountains and watershed. The SWP and the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) are the two largest
projects that capture this supply and their source is the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. Every year,
the California Department of Water Resources considers hydrologic conditions; precipitation, snowpack,
runoff, reservoir storage levels, and other factors, and allocates water to the SWP contractors who include
MWD. Increasingly over the past decade, the pumping of water from the Delta has have been restricted
because of endangered species concerns including the protection of the Delta Smelt and Salmonids.
In response, in 2006, a federal/state collaborative process known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
(BDCP) was initiated with co‐equal goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration. BDCP is a
comprehensive conservation strategy aimed at protecting dozens of species of fish and wildlife while
permitting the reliable operation of the SWP and CVP. In 2015, the Department of Water Resources
changed its permitting approach and split the BDCP into two separate projects, California WaterFix, for
water supply reliability and California EcoRestore for ecosystem restoration. California WaterFix includes
three new intakes on the Sacramento River and two 30‐mile tunnels that transfer water to the south side
of the Delta improving water supply reliability and quality (Figure 4‐4). The restoration and protection of
over 30,000 acres Delta habitat is planned by 2020 under California EcoRestore to support long‐term
health of native fish and wildlife species. Draft EIR/EIS were released for public review in 2015, with final
environmental documents expected in 2016. Total project costs are currently estimated at about $15
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-7
March 2016
billion for the California WaterFix portion. Given the number of people in the state, and in southern
California that are supplied by the SWP and the CVP, the BDCP is critical to the MWD and SDCWA supply
reliability and its progress and outcome will be watched closely by affected water agencies.
Figure 4-4 Bay Delta Conservation Plan Proposed Tunnel Option
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.2 Current Regional Water Supply and Drought Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-8
March 2016
4.2.3 Colorado River – Background and Status of
Regulatory Processes
MWD has a stated goal of operating a full CRA and delivering approximately 1 million AFY to its service
area. MWD has accomplished this by supplementing its basic apportionment of 550,000 AFY with a wide
variety of water supply development projects, operational changes, transfers and exchanges, and banking
of surplus supplies in Lake Mead, in a program known as Intentionally Created Storage.
However, according to a recent study by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation1 (who operates the Colorado
River) and the Colorado River Basin States, this may be challenging. The Colorado River Supply and
Demand Study looked 50 years into the future and concluded:
1) Climate change could reduce flows by 9 percent.
2) If no actions are taken, and population growth continues, the gap between supply and demand
could reach 3.2 million acre feet (MAF) a year.
3) Options to address the gap were evaluated, including:
■ Urban conservation
■ Agriculture to urban transfers
■ Reuse
■ Brackish water desalination
■ Seawater desalination
■ Seawater desalination from Mexico
■ A pipeline from the Missouri River Basin
MWD anticipates a 2016 CRA delivery of 960,000 acre feet, based on the hydrology of 2015 and planned
releases from the upstream Lake Powell. As of April 1, 2016, the Upper Colorado River snowpack is
approximately 97 percent of normal. The Colorado River is however in a 17‐year drought and runoff has
been below normal in 14 of the 17 years since 2000. Lake Mead levels are the lowest they have been since
the lake was originally filled with an increasing probability of a shortage declarations. A USBR study
released in August 2016 indicated there would be no shortage on the Colorado River in 2015, but a 50%
chance for 2018 and 60% chance for 2019 and after. Such a declaration would restrict MWD’s ability to
access their storage in Lake Mead and to implement interstate exchanges now being used to supplement
the basic apportionment.
4.2.4 2016 California Water Supply
As of April 2016, drought conditions in the northern and central portions of the Sierra Nevada have moved
from “Exceptional” to “Extreme” drought conditions. Through April 1, 2016, the northern Sierra
cumulative precipitation was at 124 percent of normal while the snowpack was measured at 97 percent
of normal. Water years 2013 through 2015 were three of the lowest seven snowpack levels on record,
with 2015 being the lowest on record.
Given the hydrology since 2000 in the northern California and Colorado River watersheds, and the promise
but extended schedule for the BDCP, the District is concerned about its imported water supplies. Further,
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.3 Current Portfolio of Potable Water Sources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-9
March 2016
scientists predict for the Western U.S. that climate change will (1) reduce the snowpack and accelerate
melting and runoff, and (2) produce more frequent and prolonged droughts2.
While individual retail water purveyors cannot be expected to be able to substantially alter or influence
the Southern California water picture, it is becoming increasingly clear that regional water agencies are
not going to be able to assure the long term availability of imported water supplies. Although the regional
water agencies involved in importing water to the District are intent, and in fact mandated, to devote
their resources and supplies to maintaining a reliable supply to customers within their area systems, it is
prudent that the District pursue opportunities to preserve potable water supplies and seek alternative
sources of water.
The District is evaluating all possible local water supplies including groundwater, recycled water, and
purchases from agencies that have local surface water rights, as discussed in Section 4.4.
The IRP considered supplies from out of the area like north of the Delta Transfers and Central Valley
farmland fallowing or banking in groundwater basins. In the current drought, these supplies are limited.
If such supplies are available in reasonable quantities and at reasonable prices, large wholesale agencies
like MWD and other retail agencies will contract for them, for the benefit of their customers.
In general, water supplies from out of the area, if the District could obtain them, would have to be wheeled
through the SWP or the CRA, and the MWD and SDCWA systems, with the associated wheeling charges.
New conveyance systems to deliver supplies from out of the area have proven to be prohibitively
expensive, even at a large scale. The District believes that the OMCDSP could be an exception, where the
water treatment plant and aqueduct are being constructed primarily to supply Tijuana, and the District
could obtain excess supplies, through a pipeline from the U.S./Mexico border north to the District’s
existing reservoirs, at a reasonable cost.
The District’s potential for continued growth, especially large scale residential development projects, may
require compliance with State Senate Bills 610/221, which necessitates documenting adequate water
supply.
4.3 Current Portfolio of Potable Water Sources
Existing potable water supply sources for the District include SDCWA, Helix Water District (via a supply
agreement with the SDCWA), and the City of San Diego. The facilities associated with delivering water to
the District from these agencies are described below.
4.3.1 San Diego County Water Authority
The District receives potable water from the SDCWA Pipeline 4 of the Second San Diego County Aqueduct
(Second SD Aqueduct) and the District’s 36‐inch Jamacha Pipeline. These facilities are shown schematically
in Figure 4‐5.
Pipeline 4 delivers potable water from a number of treatment sources, including: the SDCWA Twin Oaks
Valley WTP in north San Diego County; the MWD Skinner WTP located in Riverside County; and the
Carlsbad Desalinated Water Plant, which became operational in 2015. Throughout the year, the District
may see varying percentages of water from each source. Pipeline 4 is the District’s primary supply system.
SDCWA has multiple flow control facilities (FCFs) or connections to Pipeline 4 that feed into the District’s
water system.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.3 Current Portfolio of Potable Water Sources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-10
March 2016
The SDCWA’s First San Diego Aqueduct (First SD Aqueduct) delivers raw water to the R.M. Levy WTP,
owned and operated by the Helix Water District, and located at Lake Jennings in the community of
Lakeside. Treated potable water from this source is conveyed to the District via a flow control facility,
known as Otay 14 FCF, and the Jamacha Pipeline to the District’s Regulatory System. The SDCWA
previously provided this supply through FCF 8 and the La Mesa Sweetwater Extension (LMSE). FCF 8 has
been taken out of service and the LMSE has been disconnected at FCF 8 and downstream at the former
La Presa Pump Station site.
The SDCWA does not have contractual agreements with its member agencies to guarantee flow rates or
hydraulic gradients at their various flow control facility connections. Generally, if SDCWA cannot obtain
sufficient treated and/or raw water, or has delivery limitations for the water requests of its 24 member
agencies, they will attempt to allocate the water delivery shortfall to its member agencies on a
proportional basis.
The SDCWA discourages direct service from their aqueduct system, since it reduces operational flexibility,
allows for the possibility of peaking on the system, and can potentially create hydraulic transients. SDCWA
has an Operational Surcharge Ordinance for the purpose of maximizing pipeline capacity and reducing
potential surge pressures in their pipelines. The intent of the ordinance is to encourage member agencies
to withdraw water from SDCWA pipelines at constant rates throughout the day until a revised order is
placed with operations personnel. Surcharges may be imposed for delivered flows that vary by more than
10 percent of the daily flows requested at each flow control facility. The District has several large terminal
storage reservoirs in the North District at the Regulatory site (520 and 640 reservoirs) and the South
District (624 site and 570 Roll Reservoir).
Table 4‐2 lists the District’s current flow control facility connections to SDCWA Pipeline 4, their rated
capacities in cubic feet per second (cfs), and the District systems served. The location of the facilities are
shown schematically in Figure 4‐5. The facilities generally have a turn‐down ratio of 10:1, meaning that
the minimum non‐zero flow through the facility is one‐tenth, or 10 percent of the rated capacity.
Table 4-2 SDCWA Pipeline 4
FCF Connection
No.
Rated Capacity Minimum Delivery
Otay Water District Water System(s) Served cfs MGD cfs MGD
10 28.0 18.10 2.8 1.81 Central Area (624‐2 reservoir)
11 60.0 38.78 13.8 8.93 La Presa Back‐up (640 zone)
12 60.0 38.78 6.0 3.88 Central Area (624‐1 and 624‐3 reservoirs)
13 40.0 25.85 4.0 2.59 Otay Mesa (571‐1 reservoir)
cfs = cubic feet per second; MGD = million gallons per day
The flow control facilities are further described below:
■ Otay 11 FCF. This facility is located near the southwest quadrant of SR‐125 and Paradise Valley
Road, and formerly served as the primary supply for the La Presa, Regulatory, and Hillsdale
systems. With the completion of the Jamacha Pipeline and water supply purchase agreement, the
North District is normally supplied via FCF 14. FCF 11 can provide direct supply for the La Presa
System off the hydraulic gradient available from SDCWA Pipeline 4. In the event FCF 14 supply is
out of service, FCF 11 can still be used to supply the 520 and 640 Regulatory reservoirs.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.3 Current Portfolio of Potable Water Sources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-11
March 2016
■ Otay 10 FCF and Otay 12 FCF. These are the primary sources of supply to the Central Area System.
FCF 10 is located in the Eastlake area north of Otay Lakes Road near the intersection of Gotham
Street and Lehigh Avenue. Water is fed by gravity into the 624‐2 reservoir. FCF 12 is located in the
Eastlake area south of Otay Lakes Road and feeds the 624‐1 and 624‐3 reservoirs by gravity.
■ Otay 13 FCF. This facility is located near the termination of SDCWA Pipeline 4 at the Lower Otay
Reservoir, and provides supply to the Otay Mesa and Central Area System. Supply from FCF 13
was normally conveyed by gravity to the 571‐1 reservoir. However, more recently it has been
used to supply north to the Central Area via the Otay Mesa Interconnect Pipeline to the 624
reservoirs. The latter is done to improve water quality where chlorine residual can be boosted at
the Central Area and then conveyed back to the 571‐1 Reservoir. Operationally the SDCWA may
spill treated water into Lower Otay, as FCF 13 represents the last major treated water FCF on
Pipeline 4.
Pipeline 4 was designed to flow either the current north to south by gravity flow, or south to north by
pumped flow, in anticipation of a possible seawater desalination facility, at one time planned in south San
Diego Bay. This south to north design would also allow, with SDCWA approval, the pumping of water from
the OMCDSP to the north.
When SDCWA completed construction and placed Pipeline 4 into operation in 1996, the existing parallel
Pipeline 3 was converted from potable water to a raw water delivery system. Pipeline 3 provides an
imported raw water supply to the Sweetwater Authority Perdue WTP, Sweetwater Reservoir, the City of
San Diego Otay WTP, and the Lower Otay Reservoir.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.3 Current Portfolio of Potable Water Sources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-12
March 2016
Figure 4-5 Otay Water Supply Sources Schematic
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.3 Current Portfolio of Potable Water Sources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-13
March 2016
4.3.2 Helix Water District
By East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program agreement with the Helix Water District,
SDCWA, Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) and Lakeside Water District (Lakeside), the District
has capacity rights to treated water from the Levy WTP. This water is conveyed to the North District via
the District’s Jamacha Pipeline. The District’s agreement provides for a water supply delivery of 12 MGD
on‐peak, and 16 MGD off‐peak and on an annual basis a minimum of 10,000 AFY. The annual minimum
results in a “take or pay” commitment and has recently required the District to rely almost entirely on this
supply to serve the North District. The Levy WTP has a rated capacity of 106 MGD. Per the terms of the
agreement PDMWD has a take or pay of 10,080 AFY and Lakeside has a take or pay of 3,360 AFY.
In order to maximize flow from this source, the District’s Jamacha (36‐inch) Pipeline provides a
conveyance capacity of 16 MGD. The Jamacha Pipeline project also included an upgrade at FCF 14 to 16
MGD. The LMSE pipeline and FCF 8 have been taken out of service by the SDCWA.
Historically, the District has considered its supply of water from the Levy WTP to be an alternative source
for use when the SDCWA Pipeline 4 is out of service. However, the District now uses the Levy WTP supply
as a baseload use at delivery rates of up to its 16 MGD off‐peak entitlements. The District will reduce its
use of the FCF 11 while maintaining full redundant capacity. Table 4‐3 lists the flow control facility 14
rated capacity in cubic feet per second (cfs), and the District systems served.
Table 4-3 SDCWA/Helix FCF Connections
FCF Connection
No.
Off Peak Capacity Peak Capacity
Otay Water District Water System(s) Served cfs MGD cfs MGD
14 24.8 16.0 18.5 12.0 La Presa, Hillsdale, and Regulatory (520 and 640 reservoirs)
cfs = cubic feet per second; MGD = million gallons per day
Otay 14 FCF. This facility is located at 3rd Street and Lexington in the City of El Cajon and is the primary
source of supply to the North District via the Jamacha Pipeline. FCF 14 supplies by the gravity the
regulatory reservoir sites at the terminus of the Jamacha Pipeline. Normal supply is to the 640 reservoirs
(640‐1 and 640‐2), but can also feed the 520 reservoirs (520‐2 and 520‐3).
4.3.3 City of San Diego
Through a 1999 agreement with the City of San Diego, the District may obtain up to 10 MGD of supply
from the City’s Otay WTP. The Otay WTP’s existing rated capacity is 40 MGD, with an actual effective
capacity of approximately 34 MGD. The City of San Diego’s typical demand for treated water from the
Otay WTP is approximately 15 MGD. The City is currently underway with a local distribution pump station
project to increase the Otay WTP service area demand by 2 MGD and reduce supply from a treated water
connection to Pipeline 4. Under the terms of the agreement, the City’s obligation to supply treated water
to the District is contingent upon its surplus treatment capacity, beyond what the City needs for its own
area system.
The agreement also provides the District with the option of funding an expansion of the Otay WTP in
return for additional capacity rights. Although in the past the City has planned for expansion of the plant
to a capacity of 60 MGD, the City currently has no committed plans or budget for expansion of the plant.
The City has commissioned an Optimization Study that is looking at the cost effectiveness of Otay WTP
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.4 Baseline Supply Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-14
March 2016
supply in comparison to its other two WTPs in the City of San Diego system, which could result in
operational changes at the Otay WTP, as the smaller Otay WTP is more costly to operate compared to
Alvarado and Miramar WTPs.
The District does not currently have permanent facilities in place to take delivery of water from the Otay
WTP; instead a temporary “Lower Otay PS” diesel‐trailer mounted pump conveys flows to the Otay Mesa
Interconnect Pipeline. The District has completed the design of a permanent LOPS, but has yet to start
construction of the facility because of the uncertainty of reliable and affordable water supply from Otay
WTP.
The District considers the supply of water from the Otay WTP to be an alternative source for use in the
South District area system when the SDCWA Pipeline 4 is out of service. Use of this water in the North
District would be dependent on the District completing the construction of the remaining portion of the
planned South‐to‐North interconnection and transmission facilities.
4.3.4 Emergency Supplies
The District has established a goal to sustain a 10‐day outage of supply from SDCWA Pipeline 4 at any time
of the year without a reduction in service level. The District seeks to obtain this level of supply reliability
through the development of alternative water supplies, through agreements with neighboring water
districts, and through treated water storage. Chapter 5 includes a more detailed analysis on treated water
storage, supply reliability and the integration of a new base‐loaded water supply to sustain a 10‐day
outage. For emergency events longer than the 10‐day aqueduct shutdowns noted previously, the District
will utilize emergency supplies developed by SDCWA’s Emergency Storage Project (ESP). The ESP is
designed to provide treated water service to all SDCWA member agencies during a two‐month
interruption in service of imported water deliveries into San Diego County. The ESP is sized to deliver up
to 75 percent of each agency’s peak two‐month summer demand. The key facilities of the ESP include the
Olivenhain Dam and Conveyance System, the Lake Hodges Interconnect, the San Vicente‐Miramar
Pipeline, the San Vicente Pump Station, and the expansion of San Vicente Reservoir capacity.
4.4 Baseline Supply Conditions
4.4.1 Introduction
The District has completed the 2015 IRP Update which evaluated a comprehensive range of water supply
source options. The options that were selected for long term consideration are listed below:
■ Additional conservation measures
■ Groundwater projects (Rancho del Rey and Lot 7 Wells)
■ Ocean Desalination (Rosarito, Mexico or other projects)
■ Local Indirect/Direct Potable Reuse projects (Padre Dam’s Advanced Water Purification, City of
San Diego’s Pure Water, joint venture with County of San Diego and/or City of Chula Vista)
■ Non‐Potable Reuse projects (expansion of City of San Diego’s SBWRP, joint venture with County
of San Diego and/or City of Chula Vista)
■ Imported Groundwater (Cadiz Valley, purchase up to 5,000 AFY)
With water demands experienced by the District in 2015 at 65% of those previously seen during the peak
demand period of 2007, there is not an urgency for bringing on new water supplies at this time. This will
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.4 Baseline Supply Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-15
March 2016
provide the District with time to properly vet the identified supply alternatives indicated above, which are
not adequately progressed at this time to know their anticipated delivered water costs.
4.4.2 Baseline Supply Conditions Definition
Based upon the information in the 2015 IRP Update, the options selected and the planning work
completed, this Master Plan assumes the water supply conditions listed in Table 4‐4 will be in effect, and
defines these as the baseline planning assumptions.
Table 4-4 Baseline Supply Conditions
Baseline Supply Condition Description
Otay Mesa Conveyance Project
(Rosarito Desalination)
The District would enter into an agreement to purchase approximately 20 MGD of
desalinated seawater from a plant to be developed in Rosarito, Baja California, Mexico, by
a public‐private venture (NCS Aqua). The Master Plan baseline planning condition assumes
this supply will be available between 2020 and 2035.
Continued availability of
recycled water supply from City
of San Diego
The District currently purchases recycled water from the City of San Diego’s SBWRP, under
the terms of an agreement that expires in 2026. The Master Plan baseline condition
assumes the agreement will be renewed, capacity increased, and that recycled water will
continue to be available to supply the District throughout the plan’s horizon year.
Recycled water service to
Central service area only
The District currently serves recycled water only in its Central service area, covering most
of eastern Chula Vista. Through previous investigations, the District has determined
recycled service in its North District area is impracticable due to stringent requirements for
use upstream of Sweetwater Reservoir. Also, the District has determined it is not feasible
to extend recycled water service to its Otay Mesa service area. The Master Plan baseline
condition assumes recycled water service will be available to the Central service area only.
Continued availability of backup
supply from the City of San
Diego’s Otay WTP
Under the terms of an agreement with the City of San Diego, the District may purchase up
to 10 MGD of regular or backup supply from the City of San Diego’s Otay WTP, as conveyed
using the District’s LOPS. The Master Plan baseline condition assumes this agreement will
remain in place throughout the plan’s horizon year.
SDCWA to maintain Pipeline 4
fully operational even with any
new water supply in place
SDCWA’s main imported transmission pipeline serving the District is Pipeline 4. In order to
protect water quality, SDCWA’s current practice is to maintain certain minimum seasonal
flows in the pipeline, even to the extent of spilling treated water into Lower Otay Reservoir.
Any new alternative water supply will reduce the flow rates in Pipeline 4. The Master Plan
baseline condition assumes SDCWA will take whatever steps necessary to maintain Pipeline
4 operational, such that Pipeline 4 remains available to provide supplemental and backup
supply to the District.
4.4.3 Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System
Project
The District is currently investigating the feasibility of purchasing water from a seawater desalination plant
that is planned to be located in Rosarito Beach, Baja California, Mexico. The District’s CIP (P2451) is known
as OMCDSP and is shown on Figure 4‐6.
The treatment facility is intended to be designed, constructed, and operated in Mexico by a third party,
NSC Agua. The District would purchase water from the State of Baja California through the International
Boundary and Water Commission under the terms of a water purchase agreement. The plant and
conveyance system are primarily intended to supply the Tijuana regional area and if an agreement can be
negotiated, the conveyance would be extended to the U.S./Mexico border to serve the District. NSC
Agua’s current plan is to build a 100 MGD plant. Based upon the most recent demand forecasts in this
Master Plan, the District would purchase an average of approximately 20 MGD ultimately.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.4 Baseline Supply Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-16
March 2016
The District has completed a draft of the preliminary design report for the pipeline from the U.S./Mexico
border to Roll Reservoir. The need for a pump station has not yet been determined and the disinfection
requirements have not been finalized and therefore the preliminary design for these facilities has not
been started. The District had completed a combined Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) with the Department of State serving as the lead federal agency. The EIR/EIS
was certified by the Otay Water District Board on September 7, 2016. The cost of the OMCDSP facilities
in the United States is estimated at $30 million.
The California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW) regulates public
water systems. The District currently holds a Domestic Water Supply permit from DDW. The District has
prepared a CDPH (DDW) Permit Approval Road Map or “White Paper” intended to (1) identify potential
project feasibility issues, (2) develop a workable plan and process acceptable to regulators that the District
can follow to address feasibility issues, and (3) allow the District to make a final determination on whether
or not to proceed with NSC Agua in pursuing the project. The White Paper provides background and
guidance on how the project would be planned, designed, and operated to safeguard public health and
to achieve regulatory approval by DDW. It addresses various challenges including source water
evaluations, desalination plant design, DDW oversight in Mexico, pre‐and post‐operation desalination
plant monitoring needs, conveyance safety issues, cross‐border monitoring needs, water quality
provisions, and the diversion of off‐spec water. DDW has reviewed the draft White Paper and have
concurred with the issues identified and potential solutions. DDW has also confirmed that they can travel
to Mexico to inspect the plant construction and operation.
The District and its consultants believe that it is possible that DDW would only require chloramine
disinfection of the NSC Agua supply. The next level of treatment would be the so‐called dual barrier
approach and the District would likely add ultraviolet light disinfection to meet this requirement. In the
unlikely case that DDW would require filtration of the water, the cost would make the District’s
participation in the project not feasible.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.4 Baseline Supply Conditions
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-17
March 2016
Figure 4-6 Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.5 Possible Future Supplies
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-18
March 2016
While the treatment facility for the OMCDSP project will not be designed or operated by the Otay WD as
the lead agency, it is important that the District maintain involvement with the planning, design, and
construction of the facility to ensure that the implemented processes provide a product water of
acceptable quality for distribution and use within the Otay WD’s system as well as in other regional
agencies’ systems that may use the product water. A seawater desalination treatment plant removes
constituents of concern from the seawater, producing a water quality that generally exceeds established
United States and California drinking water regulations for most parameters, however, a two‐pass reverse
osmosis treatment system may be required to meet acceptable concentrations of boron and chlorides,
similar to the levels seen within the existing District supply sources. The White Paper addresses the
product water quality that is considered acceptable for public health and distribution.
Within Mexico, NSC Agua has acquired the plant site in Rosarito Beach and has begun preliminary source
water testing. They have received environmental clearance (MIA) for the plant and expect to receive
clearance for the conveyance systems in 2015. Baja California recently passed legislation allowing public‐
private partnerships (PPP) that allows the State to negotiate directly with companies like NSC Agua. In
conformance with the PPP requirements, NSC Agua submitted a letter of interest to the State for the plant
and conveyance system in March 2015 and in August 2016 they have an agreement in place with the State
of Baja to have the 50 MGD first phase in operation by 2019, which will provide desalinated water to Baja
California.
4.4.4 SDCWA/ Helix Water District
The District plans to continue to utilize the SDCWA and Helix WD supplies, described in Section 4.3, to
meet demands above those supplied by the OMCDSP. Because of the “take or pay” arrangement with
Helix WD it is likely that the North District will in the future continue to primarily receive water supply
from FCF 14 and may not receive direct desalinated water supplies. A future north‐south interconnection
between the North and South Districts may increase this supply opportunity as well as reliability. The
District should work with SDCWA to explore the opportunities to increase desalination water supply to
the North District and reduce the dependency on imported water supply.
4.5 Possible Future Supplies
Overview and Summary
In addition to the verifiable and planned supplies (baseline supplies), there are a number of other supply
options that the District is considering, some of which are included in the 2015 IRP Update supply
alternatives. In general, these supplies are in early stages of development without preliminary designs or
environmental documentation. In some cases, the supply exists and all that is needed is an agreement
with the owner. If feasible, these supplies could be implemented to supplement or replace the District’s
baseline supply and potentially improve supply reliability and stabilize rates. The District currently collects
a new water supply development fee as a part of its capacity fees and this is a source of funding for the
supplies. The following water supply projects, listed in Table 4‐5 below, have been proposed and their
current status is described in the paragraphs below.
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.5 Possible Future Supplies
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-19
March 2016
Table 4-5 Possible Future Supplies
Description and Status Use(1) Est. Yield
(AFY)
Estimated
Capital Cost
City of San Diego, Otay WTP – Through a 1999 agreement the District may obtain
surplus water. The District can also fund an expansion and use the capacity. The
District has a temporary pump station and has designed but not constructed a
permanent station to deliver the water. Use of the capacity is pending City/ District
agreement on the cost of the water.
B, E 11,200 Previous Year
Cost of Service
Pure Water San Diego – This is an indirect potable reuse (IPR) project that
ultimately could be direct potable reuse (DPR). In the initial phase, planned to be in
operation in 2023, an advanced WTP treats effluent from the North City Water
Reclamation Plant. The water is then conveyed to either Miramar Reservoir or San
Vicente Reservoir for detention and then treated at the Miramar WTP or Alvarado
WTP. The ultimate capacity is projected at 83 MGD, dependent upon other
potential off‐loadings from the wastewater collection system. Later phases could
potentially deliver water to lower Otay Reservoir and Otay WTP from the City’s
South Bay WRP, where the District could access it.
B TBD TBD
Padre Dam MWD, Advanced Water Purification, East County – This is an IPR/DPR
project similar to Pure Water San Diego. Water from the Advanced WTP would be
conveyed to either the Santee Groundwater Basin or to Lake Jennings/Levy WTP.
Padre Dam is currently conducting pilot treatment testing and if the project moves
forward, the District could potentially purchase capacity.
B 2,000‐
3,000 TBD
Cadiz Project – Cadiz is a groundwater basin in the desert area of eastern San
Bernardino County. The proponents plan to manage the basin and convey water to
the Colorado River Aqueduct where it then could be wheeled through the MWD
and SDCWA systems. The project has completed an EIR but additional regulatory
approvals are needed. The District’s IRP will evaluate this opportunity.
B, D 5,000 TBD
Rancho del Rey Well – The District has completed the well construction and has a
90 percent complete design for well head treatment facilities. The project is on hold
pending evaluations of alternative water supplies and confirmation on operation
costs.
B, D 600 $10,000,000
Otay River Groundwater Desalination Facility – The concept is to withdraw
groundwater and demineralize it. The project is on hold pending the OMCDSP
evaluation.
B 4,500 $11,000,000
Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well – Studies of these wells indicate relatively low yield and
water quality with high operation costs. The project is on hold pending the
OMCDSP evaluation.
B 300 to 500 $8,000,000(2)
IBWC South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, Tertiary Facilities –
Should the City of San Diego choose to not renew the agreement with the District
for recycled water from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, this project could
provide a potential replacement supply of up to 10 MGD. To date, only very cursory
technical evaluations have been completed.
R
25 MGD
Plant
Capacity
TBD
Chapter 4 Water Supply
4.6 References
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 4-20
March 2016
Table 4-5 Possible Future Supplies
Description and Status Use(1) Est. Yield
(AFY)
Estimated
Capital Cost
City of Chula Vista MBR Reclamation Plant – The proposed plant would take flow
from the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer, produce recycled water for irrigation
purposes in the District, and return the solids for treatment at the Point Loma
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Facility costs were updated in the City’s 2014
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. The City is continuing to evaluate the
project. The first phase will be a 2 MGD project and is estimated to cost $72 M
(2012 cost) and will increase to approximately $120 Million by the third phase to
treat 6 MGD of wastewater. Otay’s costs are estimated to be $11 M.
R 2,240 to
6,720 $11,000,000
County of San Diego Satellite Reclamation Plant – The project is similar to the
Chula Vista project and would take supply from the Spring Valley Trunk Sewer. This
could be a joint County/City/District project combining the function of the District’s
Ralph W. Chapman WRF. Very preliminary studies are underway. Facility costs
would be similar to Chula Vista option.
R 10,100 $186,000,000
(1) B = Baseline Supply, E = Emergency Supply, D = Dry Year Supply, R = Recycled for Irrigation
(2) 2016 dollars
4.6 References
City of Chula Vista, 2014. Final Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, Infrastructure Engineering
Corporation, May.
Otay Water District, 2015. Final, Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project EIR/EIS.
U.S Bureau of Reclamation, 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, December.
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-1
March 2016
Chapter 5
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM EVALUATION
5.1 Overview/Summary
The remainder of this chapter is organized into the following sections:
■ 5.2 Existing Water System
■ 5.3 Distribution System Demands
■ 5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis
■ 5.5 Distribution System Hydraulic Model
■ 5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
5.2 Existing Water System
5.2.1 Overview
The District’s potable water infrastructure consists of five primary operating systems, defined by
geographic location as shown in Figure 5‐1, located within two larger transmission systems which
encompass the District. The five primary systems are known as La Presa, Hillsdale, Regulatory, Central
Area and Otay Mesa. The La Presa, Hillsdale and Regulatory systems reside within the North District. The
Central Area and Otay Mesa systems form the South District, however the two systems are geographically
separated and normally operated independently from one another. The District does maintain an
interconnection between the Central Area and Otay Mesa for supply reliability and to improve water
quality delivered. The North and South Districts are supply independent with future plans to also be
interconnected. Each system receives imported water from one or more flow control facilities on the
SDCWA Aqueduct, as noted in Chapter 4, and has its own storage and pumping facilities to serve the
demands of customers in the system. In total, the District’s water system includes 730 miles of water
main, 29 pressure zones, 20 booster pump stations and 40 storage reservoirs accounting for 218 million
gallons (MG) of storage available within the entire District.
North District System
The North District contains three of the District’s five primary operating systems, the La Presa, Hillsdale
and Regulatory systems. The La Presa and Hillsdale systems span the western and northern boundaries of
the District and serve somewhat denser residential populations. The Regulatory system occupies the
remainder of the North District with a land area larger than the La Presa and Hillsdale systems combined
and serves the more hilly and rural portion of the District to the east. Each of these systems contain
multiple pressure zones throughout a variety of elevations. Existing infrastructure for the La Presa,
Hillsdale and Regulatory systems are shown on Exhibits I through III respectively. An updated hydraulic
schematic illustrating how all of the systems are inter‐related is provided on Exhibit VI.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-2
March 2016
Figure 5-1 Existing Potable Water Systems
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-3
March 2016
South District System
The South District contains the remaining two of the District’s five primary operating systems, the Central
Area and Otay Mesa systems. The Central Area system is the largest system in the District by population
and water demand. It primarily includes eastern Chula Vista and is bounded by I‐805 to the west and the
Lower Otay Reservoir to the northeast. The Otay Mesa system extends south from the Central Area system
to the southern border of the District, which is coincidental with the United States/Mexico border. The
Otay Mesa system serves a predominately industrial, distribution, warehouse, and commercial customer
base, with the only residents being detainees of the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility and the
George F. Bailey Detention Center. The Central Area system contains multiple boosted and reduced
pressure zones. Existing infrastructure for the Central Area and Otay Mesa systems are shown on Exhibits
IV and V respectively. An updated hydraulic schematic illustrating how all of the systems are inter‐related
is provided on Exhibit VI.
5.2.2 System Pressure Zones
The following sections describe the individual pressure zones located in the North and South Districts. The
District contains nearly 30 different pressure zones, including primary and secondary pressure zones.
Primary pressure zones contain storage reservoirs and pumping stations and/or flow control facilities and
are typically named based on the high water level elevation of the reservoir(s) that provides operational
storage. Secondary pressure zones, which include pressure reduced and small pumped systems, are
typically named based either on the downstream hydraulic grade elevation established by the pressure
reducing station serving the zone, or by the design hydraulic grade elevation of the hydropneumatic pump
station serving the zone. Table 5‐1 lists the current pressure zones throughout the entire District, their
minimum and maximum service elevations, supply source(s) and storage reservoir(s).
La Presa System
Within the La Presa system there are currently three primary pressure zones and three small secondary
pressure zones. Two of the secondary zones are served by pressure reducing stations and one is served
by a hydropneumatic pump station.
As shown in Exhibit I, the La Presa system serves the western boundary of the North District near the
Sweetwater Reservoir. Since the 2008 WRMP, several major changes have been made within the system,
which include:
■ Normal supply for this system has transitioned away from FCF 11 to FCF 14 supply to the 640
Regulatory site as the primary source of supply. As part of this transition, the 36‐inch Jamacha
pipeline with 16 MGD capacity was constructed from FCF 14 as noted in Chapter 4.
■ The La Presa Pump Station, which served the 657 and 850 zones, has been removed. The 657 zone
will be partially served via connections to the La Presa 36‐inch pipeline and the 657 reservoir. The
850 zone takes suction from the 520 and 640 reservoirs via the 850‐2 pump suction.
■ The 850‐4 reservoir has been built and is in service.
■ Under current operating conditions water supplies for the La Presa system are from the east via
FCF 14.
■ The redundant supply to the system is provided by the existing FCF 11 on the SDCWA Pipeline 4.
This water supply is conveyed by gravity from FCF 11 through existing 42‐inch and 36‐inch
transmissions mains to the Regulatory site reservoirs.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-4
March 2016
Table 5-1 District Pressure Zones
Service Area Pressure Zone
Service Elevation
(feet)(1)
Supply Source
Storage
Reservoirs Minimum Maximum
No
r
t
h
La
Pr
e
s
a
493(3) 31 343 640/493 PRS, 657/493 PRS n/a
640 178 490 FCF 14 (primary) & FCF 11 640‐1, 640‐2
657 195 507 850/657 PRS 657‐1, 657‐2
850 388 700 850‐2 PS, & 1004/850 PRS 850‐1, 850‐2,
850‐3, 850‐4
1004 542 854 1004‐2 PS 1004‐2
1050 (Pointe)(2) 588 900 Pointe Hydro PS n/a
Hi
l
l
s
d
a
l
e
803 341 653 803‐1 PS 803‐2, 803‐3,
803‐4
978 516 828 978‐1 PS 978‐1, 978‐2
1200 738 1,050 1200‐1 PS 1200‐1
860
(Cottonwood)(2) 398 710 Cottonwood Hydro PS n/a
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
520 58 370 FCF 14 (primary) & FCF 11 520‐2, 520‐3
832 370 682 832‐1 PS, 944/832 PRS 832‐1, 832‐2
932(3) 470 782 1296/932 PRS n/a
944 482 794 944‐1 PS, 1296/944 PRS 944‐1, 944‐2
1090 628 940 1090‐1 PS 1090‐1
1296 834 1,146 1296‐1 PS 1296‐1, 1296‐
2, 1296‐3
1530 (Vista Diego)(2) 1,068 1,380 Vista Diego Hydro PS n/a
1655 (Rancho Jamul)(2) 1,193 1,505 Rancho Jamul Hydro PS n/a
1485 1,023 1,335 1485‐2 PS 1485‐1, 1485‐2
So
u
t
h
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
340(3) 0 190 458/340 PRS n/a
458 0 308 624/458 PRS 458‐1, 458‐2
485 23 335 624/485 PRS, 711/485 PRS 485‐1
580(3) 118 430 711/580 PRS n/a
624 162 474 FCF 10 & FCF 12 & FCF 13 (via
Interconnect), 711/624 PRS
624‐1, 624‐2,
624‐3
711 249 561 980/711 PRS & 711‐1 PS 711‐1, 711‐2,
711‐3
980 518 830 980‐1 PS (stand‐by) & 980‐2 PS 980‐1, 980‐2
1100 (Rolling Hills Ranch)(2) 638 950 1100 Hydro PS n/a
Otay
Mesa
571(4) 109 421 FCF 12 & FCF 13(5) 571‐1
870 408 720 Low Head PS & 870‐1 PS 870‐1
FCF = flow control facility; PRS = pressure reducing station; PS = pump station; n/a = not applicable
Note: Facilities listed are as of April 2015
(1) Maximum elevation based on 65 psi static pressure. Minimum elevation based on 200 psi static pressure.
(2) Service elevations established by the hydropneumatic system pressure settings.
(3) Service elevations established by the pressure reducing station pressure settings.
(4) Reservoirs only serve as forebay storage for pump stations and provide no direct gravity service to customers.
(5) Delivered to 624‐3 Reservoir first, then gravity fed to 571‐1 Reservoir via Interconnect.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-5
March 2016
493 Pressure Zone. This is a small zone between the 657 and 640 zones, served by a pressure reducing
station from the 640 and 657 systems.
640 Pressure Zone. This zone has expanded and is primarily supplied by 640 reservoirs from FCF 14 with
redundant supply from FCF 11.
657 Pressure Zone. This zone is directly south of the 850 zone at the western edge of the North District
and is served by a pressure reducing station from the 850 zone, as well as the 657‐1 and 657‐2 reservoirs.
850 Pressure Zone. The 850 zone is primarily supplied by FCF 14. The FCF 14 connection feeds into two
forebay reservoirs (520 and 640) of different elevation at the Regulatory site. Supply for the 850 zone is
via the 850‐2 Coops Lane pump station, with suction from the 520 reservoirs and 640 reservoirs to
minimize pumping head and energy costs.
Water is also available during emergencies to this zone via several pressure reducing stations from the
1004 zone.
1004 Pressure Zone. This small zone is supplied by direct pumping from the lower 640 zone to the 1004‐2
reservoir.
1050 Pressure Zone. This small closed zone is supplied by a hydropneumatic pump station fed by the
850 zone.
Locations and boundaries of the La Presa system pressure zones and shown on Exhibit I. A summary of
the existing pressure zones within the La Presa system is provided at the beginning of this section in
Table 5‐1.
Hillsdale System
Within the Hillsdale system there are currently three primary pressure zones and one small secondary
pressure zone that is served by a hydropneumatic system. As shown on Exhibit II, the Hillsdale system
serves the northernmost part of the North District. The Hillsdale system has also transitioned from FCF 11
to FCF 14 as its primary supply source with its suction from the 520 and 640 reservoirs.
803 Pressure Zone. This is the largest zone in the Hillsdale system and serves as the source of supply for
several other zones. Supply for the 803 zone is via the Hillsdale pump station (803‐1) with normal suction
from the 640‐1 reservoir to minimize pumping head and energy costs. Suction can also be taken from the
520 regulatory reservoirs, if needed.
860 Pressure Zone. The 860 zone (Cottonwood) is a small closed zone that takes suction from the
803 system and serves its connections hydropneumatically at an approximate HGL of 860 feet.
978 Pressure Zone. This zone is at the north edge of the North District and takes suction from the 803‐4
reservoir via the 978‐1 PS to the 978‐1 and 978‐2 reservoirs to serve the 978 zone.
1200 Pressure Zone. This zone is between the 978 and 803 zones and takes suction from the 978‐1
reservoir via the 1200‐1 PS to the 1200‐1 reservoir to serve the 1200 zone.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-6
March 2016
Locations and boundaries of the Hillsdale system pressure zones can be seen on Exhibit II. A summary of
the existing pressure zones within the Hillsdale system is provided at the beginning of this section in
Table 5‐1.
Regulatory System
Within the Regulatory system there are currently six primary pressure zones and three secondary pressure
zones, two of which are served by hydropneumatic systems and one is served by a pressure reducing
station. The Regulatory system is served in a stair‐stepped arrangement involving pumping up from lower
to high zones as the zone elevations rise. As shown on Exhibit III, the Regulatory system serves lower
density development in the eastern portion of the North District.
The Regulatory system has seen minimal distribution system changes since the 2008 WRMP and water
demands have decreased slightly. Major improvements to the Regulatory system since 2008 are those
which are related to the supply upgrade of the FCF 14 and the Jamacha Pipeline feeding the Regulatory
site.
520 Pressure Zone. This zone is created by the Regulatory system reservoirs, 520‐2 and 520‐3, which are
supplied directly by FCF 14.
832 Pressure Zone. This zone neighbors the 520 zone and is supplied by pumping from the 520 reservoirs
to the 832 reservoirs via the 832‐1 PS.
932 Pressure Zone. This zone is along Jamul Drive and neighbors the 803 and 1296 zone. It is supplied by
a pressure reducing station from the 1296 zone.
944 Pressure Zone. This zone neighbors the 832 zone and is supplied by pumping from the 832 reservoirs
to the 944 reservoirs via the 944‐1 PS.
1090 Pressure Zone. This zone neighbors both the 832 and 944 zones and is supplied by pumping from
the 832 reservoirs to the 1090 reservoir via the 1090‐1 PS.
1296 Pressure Zone. This zone surrounds the 944 and 832 zones and is supplied by pumping from the
944 reservoir to the 1296 reservoirs via the 1296‐1 PS.
1485 Pressure Zone. This zone is at the eastern edge of the North District and is supplied by pumping from
the 1296 reservoirs to the 1485 reservoirs via the 1485‐1 PS.
1530 Pressure Zone. This small closed zone along the eastern edge of the North District is supplied by a
hydropneumatic pump station fed by the 1296 zone.
1655 Pressure Zone. This small closed zone along the eastern edge of the North District is supplied by a
hydropneumatic pump station fed by the 1296 zone.
Locations and boundaries of the Regulatory system pressure zones are shown on Exhibit III. A summary
of the existing pressure zones within the Regulatory system is provided at the beginning of this section in
Table 5‐1.
Central Area System
Within the Central Area system there are currently five primary pressure zones and three secondary
pressure zones, the latter zones are served by pressure reducing stations. As shown on Exhibit IV, the
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-7
March 2016
Central Area serves major development areas located in eastern Chula Vista. Water supply for the Central
Area system is obtained from FCF 10 and FCF 12 on the SDCWA Pipeline 4. Supply from the FCF 10 is
conveyed by gravity to the 624‐2 reservoir and supply from the FCF 12 is conveyed by gravity to the 624‐
1 and 624‐3 reservoirs. Water is supplied from the 624 reservoirs by gravity and pumping to serve the
various pressure zones of the Central Area System. Based on water quality concerns in the SDCWA’s
Pipeline 4, the District will take water from FCF 13 and supply the 624 ‐3 reservoir.
An emergency supply to the Central Area is also available through the District’s connection to the City of
San Diego’s Otay WTP. The District has access to 10 MGD, if available, of surplus capacity at the Otay WTP.
This source is primarily for outage conditions, as there are no permanent facilities to convey the Otay WTP
flow to the South District, only the temporary Lower Otay Pump Station (LOPS).
Since the 2008 WRMP, the Central Area water system has continued to expand. The following upgrades
since 2008 to the Central Area include:
■ The 711‐1 PS pumps were replaced and reduced in capacity from 4,000 gpm each to 2,500 gpm
following issues with pump cavitation related to the suction manifold.
■ Hunte Parkway 30‐inch parallel pipeline was constructed to increase 980‐1 pumping capacity and
reduce transmission main headlosses during reservoir filling and draining cycles in the 980 zone.
■ Completion of additional water distribution systems in the Otay Ranch area.
340 Pressure Zone. This zone is at the south western edge of the Central Area system and is fed by three
pressure reducing stations from the 458 zone system.
458 Pressure Zone. This zone is at the south western edge of the Central Area system and is fed by gravity
by two pressure reducing stations from the 624‐1 reservoir on the 624 transmission system and the 458‐
1 and 458‐2 reservoirs.
485 Pressure Zone. This zone is at the north western edge of the Central Area system and is fed by gravity
by two pressure reducing stations from the 624 transmission system. This zone has a secondary pressure
reducing station which can feed the zone by gravity from the 711 transmission system.
580 Pressure Zone. This is a small zone north of the 711 zone that is fed by gravity through two pressure
reducing stations off of the 711 transmission system.
624 Pressure Zone. This zone receives the primary supply for the entire Central Area system through
FCF 10 and FCF 12. Supply is stored in the zone’s three reservoirs which is served by gravity. Normally
closed pressure reducing stations from the 711 and 980 transmission systems are also available for high
demand/low pressure periods. The District physically operates the 624 reservoirs to serve three subzone
areas: 624‐2 serves north of east H Street, 624‐1 reservoir serves Telegraph Canyon and west, and 624‐3
serves as a forebay for 711 PS and 980 PS.
711 Pressure Zone. A large zone in the center of the Central Area system is supplied by pumping from the
624‐3 reservoir to the 711 reservoirs. A normally closed pressure reducing station from the 980 zone is
also available for high demand/low pressure periods.
980 Pressure Zone. A large zone surrounding a large portion of the 711 zone is supplied by pumping from
the 624‐3 reservoir into the 980 reservoirs via the 980‐2 PS. This zone can also be supplied during
emergencies by the 711 zone by pumping from the 980‐1 PS.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-8
March 2016
1100 Pressure Zone. This small closed zone surrounded by the 980 zone is supplied by a hydropneumatic
pump station fed by the 980 zone.
Locations and boundaries of the Central Area system pressure zones are shown on in Exhibit IV. A
summary of the existing pressure zones within the Central Area system is provided at the beginning of
this section in Table 5‐1.
Otay Mesa System
Within the Otay Mesa system there is currently one primary pressure zone. As shown on Exhibit V, the
Otay Mesa system serves the primarily industrial zones in the City and County of San Diego at the southern
end of the District, going as far south as the border with Mexico. Water supply for the Otay Mesa system
is primarily delivered through FCF 12 on SDCWA Pipeline 4 via the 624 Zone and Interconnect to the 571‐
1 reservoir. To assist the SDCWA maintain water quality in Pipeline 4, water is also supplied through FCF
13; however, supply through FCF 13 is delivered to the 624‐3 Reservoir to boost chloramine disinfection
residual, then gravity fed to 571‐1 Reservoir via the District’s Interconnect. The 571‐1 reservoir only
provides forebay and emergency storage for the 870 system. The District’s connection to the City of San
Diego Otay WTP can also be accessed by the Otay Mesa system as an alternate source of supply.
Since the 2008 WRMP, the Otay Mesa system has had minimal growth. The transmission and distribution
systems are robust, as many of them were originally planned for large agricultural demands. Upgrades to
the Otay Mesa system since the previous WRMP include:
■ The 870 low head and high head pumping stations are being replaced with a single pump station,
870‐2. This project is currently under design. The project will include 571‐1 Reservoir recirculation
pumps and a booster chloramine disinfection station to facilitate the District’s ability to take
deliveries directly from FCF 13.
■ Existing recycled water pipelines constructed on Otay Mesa that are charged with potable water
will continue to remain on the potable water system for redundancy and/or repurposed for the
new 870‐2 Pump Station.
571 Pressure Zone. This zone includes only the 571‐1 (Roll) Reservoir on the northern end of the Otay
Mesa system which serves as a forebay for the 870 low head and high head pumping stations.
870 Pressure Zone. This zone is supplied by pumping from the 571‐1 reservoir through the 870‐1 PS to
the 870‐1 reservoir.
Locations and boundaries of the Otay Mesa system pressure zones are shown on Exhibit V. A summary of
the existing pressure zones within the Otay Mesa system is provided at the beginning of this section in
Table 5‐1.
5.2.3 Pump Stations
The District currently maintains and operates 19 water pump stations in its potable water distribution
system. The majority of the pump stations are designed to lift water from a lower zone to a distribution
reservoir of a higher zone. These pump stations, which serve “open systems,” are normally operated at a
constant flow and are controlled by water level in the distribution reservoir being pumped to. The District
also operates several hydropneumatic pump stations that operate as the only source of supply for high
elevation and isolated zones, which lack a distribution reservoir. These pump stations must meet all
demand conditions, including peak hour and maximum day fire flow, and therefore are typically operated
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-9
March 2016
with VFDs. The hydraulic schematic of the system (Exhibit VI) shows the schematic location of every pump
station. The following sections summarize existing pump stations, including station identification,
operating characteristics, firm capacities, system demands, projected surpluses and deficits of pumping
capacity and other information relevant to each individual station. Firm capacity of the pump stations
have been modified based on actual operating conditions and field tests since the 2008 Master Plan.
North District System
The North District currently has 14 pump stations in potable water operations providing water to the La
Presa, Hillsdale and Regulatory systems. The Regulatory system includes seven of the fourteen pump
stations in the North District, with two of the seven serving stations serving closed zones
hydropneumatically, and the other five serving open zones with storage reservoirs. The Hillsdale system
contains four pump stations, one of which is hydropneumatic and serving a closed zone. The La Presa
system contains three pump stations, two of which serve open zones and one hydropneumatic station
serving a closed zone. Table 5‐2 provides a summary of the existing pump stations in the North District,
by system, and presents the number of pump units, total and firm capacity, as well as suction and
discharge zones of each station.
Table 5-2 North District Pump Stations
System
Pump
Station
Duty/Fire
Pumps Suction
Discharge
Zone
Station
Type
Pump Station Capacity(1)
Total Firm
gpm MGD gpm MGD
La Presa
850‐2 4 520/640 850 8,000 11.52 6,000 8.64
1004‐2 3 640 1004 1,500 2.16 1,000 1.44
1050‐1 2 / 1 850‐1 1050 Hydro 480 0.69 240 0.35
Hillsdale
803‐1 5 520/640 803 14,000 20.16 11,200 16.13
978‐1 4 803‐4 978 3,100 4.46 2,250 3.24
1200‐1 3 978‐1 1200 1,500 2.16 1,000 1.44
860‐1 2 803 860 Hydro 140 0.20 100 0. 10
Regulatory
832‐1 3 520 832 6,300 9.07 4,200 6.05
1090‐1 2 832 1090 560 0.81 280 0.40
944‐1 4 832 944 4,700 6.77 3,000 4.32
1296‐1 4 944‐1 1296 4,650 6.70 2,900 4.18
1485‐2 3 1296 1485 1,350 1.94 900 1.30
1655‐1 4 1296 1655 Hydro 970 1.40 620 0.89
1530‐1 2 / 1 1296 1530 Hydro 520 0.75 260 0.37
(1) The District provided updated firm pump capacities based on actual operating field conditions, pump tests, and review of
pump curves and in some cases has reduced nominal pump station capacities.
South District System
The South District currently has 5 pump stations in potable water operations providing water to the
Central Area and Otay Mesa systems. The Central Area system is the largest and most populous system in
the District, and the 980 zone operates two large pump stations that lift water received from the 624 and
711 zones, respectively, to the 980 zone. The 711 zone also pumps from the 624 zone, and the 1100
hydropneumatic pump station from the 980 zone. The Otay Mesa system operates one large, relatively
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-10
March 2016
flat pressure system served by the 870‐1 high and low head pumps. Table 5‐3 provides a summary of the
existing pump stations in the South District and presents the number of pump units, total and firm
capacity, as well as suction and discharge zones of each station. The 711‐1 PS capacity was downgraded
in 2011 from 16,000 gpm (4 pumps @ 4,000 gpm) to 10,000 gpm (4 pumps @ 2,500 gpm) to resolve
cavitation issues related to the pump suction piping.
Table 5-3 South District Pump Stations
System
Pump
Station
Duty/Fire
Pumps Suction
Discharge
Zone
Station
Type
Pump Station Capacity
Total Firm
gpm MGD gpm MGD
Central Area
711‐1 5 624‐1
624‐3 711 12,500 18.00 10,000 14.40
980‐1 3 711 980 12,000 17.28 8,000 11.52
980‐2 4 624‐1
624‐3 980 16,000 23.04 12,000 17.28
1100‐1 3 / 1 980 1100 Hydro 1,625 2.34 845 1.22
Otay Mesa 870‐1 5 571‐1 870 14,500 20.88 11,000 15.84
5.2.4 Storage
The District currently operates 40 potable water reservoirs within its water distribution system. The total
existing storage capacity for the entire system is over 218 MG, and is shown in more detail in Table 5‐4
and Table 5‐5. The District’s reservoirs provide operational storage for serving daily variations in water
demand, as well as storage for fire flows and emergency water supply shortages and interruptions.
The District has had to lower operating levels of several reservoirs in the system to manage water quality
on a seasonal basis. In some cases, this level may be reduced to as low as 50 percent of normal storage.
The Master Plan presents a baseline assumption that the District can fully utilize 100 percent of normal
operating storage to meet its design criteria. This is particularly critical when analyzing the 10‐day storage
requirements and the assumption of normal operating level, especially in the South District. The District’s
implementation of a Desalinated Water project will reduce its dependency on the 10‐day storage
requirement, however should this project be abandoned, the District should revisit the storage needs in
the South District under an assumed normal operating level.
North District System
The North District includes 27 reservoirs located in 13 pressure zones. The reservoirs in the North District
vary in size from 0.31 MG to 20 MG. Where zones are served by pump stations or pressure reducing
stations only, their storage needs are accounted for the in the zone from which they receive their supply.
The North District contains over 85 MG of storage, and with a current ADD of nearly 9 MGD, many of the
North Districts reservoirs are operated low to avoid problems with water turnover and age related quality
issues.
South District System
The South District includes 13 reservoirs located in 7 pressures zones. Where zones are served by pump
stations or pressure reducing stations only, their storage needs are accounted for the in the zone from
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-11
March 2016
which they receive their supply. The reservoirs in the South District vary from 0.82 to 36.72 MG in size.
The South District contains over 133 MG of storage, and with a current ADD of just over 23 MGD, several
of the reservoirs are also operated low to avoid problems with water turnover and age related quality
issues.
Table 5-4 North District Potable Water Storage Reservoirs
System Reservoir Capacity (MG) High Water Level (feet) Material
La Presa
640‐1 10.0 640 Concrete
640‐2 10.0 640 Concrete
657‐1 (Emergency) 1.00 657 Steel
657‐2 (1‐1A Reservoir) 0.84 657 Steel
850‐1 (1‐5 Reservoir) 1.12 851 Steel
850‐2 (20‐1 Reservoir) 3.00 850 Steel
850‐3 (20‐2 Reservoir) 3.10 851 Steel
850‐4 2.20 851 Steel
1004‐2 (Dictionary Hill) 1.40 1004 Steel
Hillsdale
803‐2 (20‐3 Reservoir) 2.00 803 Steel
803‐3 (Singing Hills) 2.15 804 Steel
803‐4 (Vista Grande) 5.76 803 Steel
978‐1 (3‐2 Reservoir) 0.53 978 Steel
978‐2 (Filiponi) 2.50 978 Concrete
1200‐1 (Grant) 1.00 1200 Steel
Regulatory
520‐2 (Regulatory‐2) 5.10 520 Steel
520‐3 (Emergency) 20.00 520 Concrete
832‐1 (2‐1 Reservoir) 0.87 833 Concrete Aluminum
832‐2 (2‐1A Reservoir) 1.96 832 Steel
944‐1 (9‐1 Reservoir) 0.31 944 Steel
944‐2 (9‐1A Reservoir) 3.08 944 Steel
1090‐1 (2‐2 Reservoir) 0.47 1090 Concrete Aluminum
1296‐1 (9‐2 Reservoir) 1.02 1296 Steel
1296‐2 (9‐2A Reservoir) 2.01 1296 Steel
1296‐3 2.00 1300 Concrete
1485‐1 (9‐3 Reservoir) 0.31 1485 Steel
1485‐2 (9‐3A Reservoir) 1.60 1485 Steel
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-12
March 2016
Table 5-5 South District Potable Water Storage Reservoirs
System Reservoir Capacity (MG) High Water Level (feet) Material
Central Area
458‐1 (10‐1 Reservoir) 0.82 458 Steel
458‐2 (10‐2 Reservoir) 1.75 458 Steel
485‐1 (22‐2 Reservoir) 1.00 485 Steel
624‐1 (Patzig Reservoir) 12.40 624 Earth Embank
624‐2 (22‐3 Reservoir) 8.13 624 Steel
624‐3 (Eastlake) 30.00 624 Concrete
711‐1 (22‐1 Reservoir) 3.10 711 Steel
711‐2 (22‐1A Reservoir) 2.30 711 Steel
711‐3 (22‐1B Reservoir) 16.00 711 Earth Embank
980‐1 (22‐4 Reservoir) 5.02 979 Steel
980‐2 (22‐5 Reservoir) 5.02 979 Steel
Otay Mesa 571‐1 (Roll) 36.72 571 Earth Embank
870‐1 (Upper) 10.98 870 Earth Embank
5.2.5 Pressure Reducing Stations
The District maintains several pressure reduced zones, due primarily to large elevation changes in the
western portion of the Central service area and a portion of the La Presa System, where it is necessary to
reduce operating pressures. In addition, the District maintains a number of redundant PRSs designed to
serve lower pressure zones from high zones in the event of a system outage in the lower zone or
potentially a high fire flow requirement. These PRSs allow the District to utilize emergency storage and
fire storage from higher zones to lower zones. This is taken into consideration in the storage analysis in
Section 5.4. The District also utilizes PRSs in key zone locations to supplement flow during peak hour
conditions. This is accomplished by adjusting the downstream pressure to only open during large pressure
swings.
The District’s typical standard for a PRS include both a main pressure reducing valve and a small reducing
valve to cover a wide range of flow operations. Valves are housed usually in pre‐cast concrete vaults and
may also include a pressure relief valve designed to protect the lower system from over‐pressurization in
the event of a valve failure. New PRSs are typically equipped with SCADA to allow remote monitoring.
The remaining section describes key PRS facilities and system operations.
North District
The North District includes a reduced pressure zone in La Presa that is always fed from a higher zone. The
Regulatory system has included several redundant PRSs to allow flow from higher zones to lower zones.
These PRSs are usually at or near the pump station serving the Regulatory system.
South District
The Central service area includes several normally pressure reduced zones along the eastern boundary
that must be reduced from the 624 zone. These include the 485 and 458 zones, respectively, where each
zone also includes small operating reservoirs. The 458 zone also exclusively feeds the reduced 340 zone
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-13
March 2016
with several PRSs. In the north, a small 580 zone is exclusively supplied by the 711 zone. Operators may
periodically adjust pressure setting based on system wide demands, water quality management, and
other system factors.
Two of the largest District pressures zones, the 624 and 711 zones, because of their zone size and distance
from their main sources of supply, must be supplied in some cases from the higher pressure zone to meet
peak hour pressures or to provide adequate fire flows. Therefore, the District operates several 711/624
and 980/711 PRSs to meet overall system design criteria, and to provide redundancy throughout the
Central area system.
5.2.6 Emergency Interconnections
There are several existing emergency interconnections with neighboring agency systems that can provide
relatively small quantities of water to benefit the District, the other agency or both. The locations of the
interconnections are shown on Exhibits I through V and Appendix G. These connections are typically used
when performing shutdowns within specific localized pressure zones for planned operational
circumstances or in the event of an emergency within an agency unrelated to SDCWA system operations.
In many cases, the interconnections are at different operating pressures requiring the District to install
temporary pumping facilities to fully utilize.
The District has eight existing minor interconnections with the Helix WD, all eight of which are capable of
supplying the District with water. The District has eight existing minor interconnection with Sweetwater
Authority, one of which is capable of supplying the District with water. The District has one existing minor
interconnection with Cal‐American (Cal‐Am) that is capable of supplying this private water company with
water. The District has seven existing minor interconnections with the City of San Diego, five of which are
capable of supplying the District with water.
The District has one emergency connection with Mexico (Mexico Connection) that is capable of supplying
the City of Tijuana with water. The Mexico Connection is located near the international border east of the
Second Border crossing within the Otay Mesa System 870 Pressure Zone and has a capacity of
approximately 20.0 cfs (8,976 gpm or 12.9 MGD). The SDCWA actually wheels water through the District’s
870 zone system via an agreement between Mexico and Metropolitan Water District for access to
imported Colorado River water. The connection is emergency in nature and has been rarely used the past
few years, however the capacity in the system must be reserved for Mexico. As an example, for several
days in November 2012 nearly 10 MGD of supply was provided to Mexico through the District system.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.2 Existing Water System
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-14
March 2016
Table 5-6 Emergency Interconnections
OWD Connection Identification OWD Water
System & Zone
Flow Rate (gpm)
& Direction
Status/Notes
He
l
i
x
Wa
t
e
r
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
H1 Blossom Lane La Presa (Aqueduct)800 bidirectional
H2 Grand Avenue La Presa (850) 200 to OWD
H3 Ivy Street La Presa (850) 400 bidirectional
H4 Sir Francis Drake Drive La Presa (850) 800 to OWD
H5 Vista Grande Road Hillsdale (978) 1,000 bidirectional
H6 Sweetwater Springs Blvd La Presa (850) 800 bidirectional
H7 Del Rio Road La Presa (850) 400 bidirectional
H8 Gillispie Drive La Presa (640) 800 bidirectional
H‐# Chase & Fuerte Hillsdale (978)FUTURE FUTURE
Sw
e
e
t
w
a
t
e
r
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
SW1 East Oxford Street Central Area (458) 1,000 bidirectional
SW2 East Naples Street Central Area (624) 1,000 to SWA
SW3 Douglas Street Central Area (711) 350 to SWA
SW4 Proctor Valley Road Central Area (580) 140 to SWA Routine sole supply to SWA meters
(non‐emergency)
SW5 Cherry Hills Lane Central Area (624) 1,000 to SWA
SW6 Jamacha Boulevard La Presa (657 PZ) 1,000 to SWA
SW7 Bay Leaf Drive Central Area (485) 800 to SWA
SW8 Camino Elevado Drive Central Area (624) 800 to SWA
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Di
e
g
o
SD1 Glen Vista Street La Presa (640) 700 bidirectional
SD2 Heritage Road Otay Mesa (870) 5,000 to City Existing stubouts for OWD portable
trailer pump not mentioned in
agreement text.
SD3 Brown Field Otay Mesa (870) 2,000 to City
SD4 Otay Rio
(Entertainment)
Central Area (340) 5,000 to OWD
SD5 Telegraph Canyon Rd
(two OWD trailer pump
connections)
Central Area (624) 2,500 to OWD Existing stubouts for OWD portable
trailer pumps, stubouts to City appear
deactivated Central Area (711) 2,500 to OWD
SD6 East H Street Central Area (485) 1,500 to OWD
SD7 Main Street (Palm) Central Area (340) 2,500 to OWD Deactivated, superseded by Otay Rio
SD8 Lower Otay Pump
Station (LOPS)
Central Area (624) 5,000 bidirectional OWD semi‐permanent trailer pump
Cal Am
(CA‐1)
Otay Valley Road Central Area (340) 1,000 to CalAm Agency Option
Mexico
(MX‐1)
South end of Alta Rd. Otay Mesa (870) 9,000 to Mexico Agreement between OWD and
SDCWA.
Padre Dam
(P‐#)
Dehesa Valley Road Hillsdale (803)FUTURE FUTURE
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.3 Distribution System Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-15
March 2016
5.3 Distribution System Demands
5.3.1 Water Demands
The existing water demands from Chapter 3 were actually linked to existing model nodes and as such
could be summarized by pressure zone. For future water demands SANDAG land use information,
including both residential and employment population, was compared to City of Chula Vista land use
information provided for the remaining General Plan area and found to correlate well in terms of
projected increases in future water and recycled use. Therefore, it became apparent that the SANDAG
database would be valuable in forecasting water and recycled use by pressure zone as discussed in
Chapter 3. Furthermore, the availability of Chula Vista Land Use information and previous District studies
(SAMPs) allowed for the future water demand increases by pressure zone to be disaggregated and
assigned to the new 2050 Info Water model, which includes existing demands (2013 meter data) plus
future demands.
Table 5‐7 presents the existing average annual consumption by major water system and individual
pressure zone for year 2013. For the baseline year of 2013, each water meter was linked to the InfoWater
model to provide a very accurate average annual water demand disaggregation and one that can be tallied
easily from the model by pressure zone. Accordingly, the existing water demand by zone can be used to
evaluate existing storage and pumping needs (capacity surpluses or deficiencies) as discussed in
Chapter 3.
Table 5‐7 also presents updated water demand projections for the District at ultimate (assumed year
2050) and for an interim year 2020 scenario. The SANDAG database proved invaluable in assigning future
demands by pressure zone, and provides the District an accurate forecast for each pressure zone and
water system. The 2050 average annual water demand serves as the basis for 2050 pump station and
storage capacity needs.
The North District is anticipated to experience about a 12 percent increase in water use, however, this
equates to only an increase of about 1.0 MGD of average demand in the more spatially populated area as
limited available land, and a few minor residential projects characterizes most of the North District.
The South District on the other hand will experience both a large percentage increase in demands as well
as a high total volume of water to be supplied. On average, the Central service area will increase
approximately 60% (12 MGD). The magnitude of demand will have a noticeable impact on major pumping
and storage facilities and hence the interest and opportunity in the Rosarito Desalinated Water
Conveyance project. The largest percent increase, within the South District, will be the District’s Otay
Mesa system as a result of the newly adopted City of San Diego Community Plan Update. A nearly 200
percent increase is forecasted resulting in a 5 MGD increase in average water use on Otay Mesa.
Interesting, the Otay Mesa water system historically served agriculture demands and actually has the
transmission and conveyance facilities mostly in place to meet this demand increase.
Planning phases have been developed to define specific periods to forecast, plan and budget for
anticipated growth within the District. The existing water system and immediate needs are defined as
Phase I and include CIP projects currently under design or construction. Phase II includes anticipated
growth through year 2020, and Phase III is assumed to occur by year 2050 and provides for ultimate size
facilities.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.3 Distribution System Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-16
March 2016
Table 5-7 Water Demands by Pressure Zone and Service Area
System Pressure Zone
Existing
(2013) AAD
(MGD)(1)
Projected 2020 AAD 2015
WRMP Update
(MGD)
% Growth for
Phase II
(2020)
Projected 2050
(Ultimate) AAD 2015 WRMP
Update
(MGD)
% Growth for
Ultimate
North District
La Presa
493 0.13 0.13 ‐1%0.11 ‐12%
640 1.50 1.52 1%1.52 1%
657 0.42 0.42 0%0.55 32%
850 2.51 2.78 11%3.18 27%
1004 0.07 0.06 ‐3%0.09 41%
1050 (Pointe Hydro) 0.05 0.05 ‐1%0.04 ‐13%
Subtotal La Presa 4.67 4.95 6%5.50 18%
Hillsdale
803/860 1.91 1.89 ‐1%1.86 ‐2%
978 0.87 0.84 ‐3%0.84 ‐3%
1200 0.15 0.15 ‐2%0.16 5%
Subtotal Hillsdale 2.93 2.88 ‐2%2.87 ‐2%
Regulatory
520 0.17 0.22 28%0.22 26%
832 0.30 0.33 10%0.30 2%
944 0.00 0.00 ‐7%0.01 13%
1090 0.02 0.03 59%0.02 49%
1296 0.52 0.55 6%0.70 35%
1485 0.23 0.22 ‐3%0.25 10%
1530 (Vista Diego) 0.03 0.03 ‐2%0.04 33%
1655 (Rancho Jamul) 0.02 0.02 ‐2%0.01 ‐13%
Subtotal Regulatory 1.28 1.39 8%1.55 21%
Subtotal North District 8.9 9.2 4%2 9.9 12%
South District
Central Area
340 0.56 0.72 27%0.84 49%
458 0.99 1.06 7%1.02 3%
485 0.46 0.48 6%0.46 2%
580 0.17 0.22 26%0.22 26%
624 2.66 2.97 12%3.73 40%
711 6.13 6.93 13%8.13 33%
980 5.33 7.50 41%8.23 54%
1100 0.13 0.28 121%0.27 112%
Subtotal Central Area 16.43 20.15 23%22.90 39%
Otay Mesa
870/570 2.89 3.62 25%8.03 178%
Subtotal Otay Mesa 2.89 3.62 25%8.03 178%
Subtotal South District 19.35 19.3 23.8 23% 60%
Total 28.2 33.0 17%40.9 45%
(1) Existing 2013 demands are based on OWD billing data (2013).
.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-17
March 2016
The 2020 water demands were the basis for evaluating near term storage and pumping needs. No
extensive modeling was performed under the 2020 condition due to the minimal increase in demands.
The 2050 demands were modeled to focus on major transmission projects, potentially required through
the planned areas of the District, and include projects to be constructed by developers and other District
reliability projects.
5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis
This section presents the potable water system capacity analysis for water storage and pumping facilities,
and identifies any deficiencies in the existing system based on the design criteria presented in Chapter 2
and presents an analysis of the 2020 and 2050 demand conditions.
Existing Water System
Total operational storage and pumping requirements are calculated based on the planning criteria
outlined in Chapter 2. The pumping capacity analysis includes the revised criteria of 16‐hours pumping
period on MDD, and provides a comparison to both 17 and 24 hours.
Existing Storage Analysis
The storage calculations for supplying primary pressure zones include the secondary pressure zone
demands served by pressure reducing stations and hydropneumatic pump stations. Table 5‐8 and Table
5‐9 present the reservoir storage balance calculations for the operational storage required for each
system in the North and South District, respectively. The storage analysis shows that the North and South
Districts have total storage surpluses of 19 MG, and 14 MG, respectively. Part of this is contributed to
lower average annual water demands and reduced peaking system wide during MDD as storage is a direct
function of the MDD.
A few pressure zones show minor deficiencies. In these cases higher zone storage can be credited to
mitigate the deficiency. The largest deficiency currently exists in the 980 zone with is the highest growth
areas in the District. It is recommended that new storage be planned to correct this deficiency and be
coordinated with planned development and projected growth.
Existing Pump Station Capacity Analysis
As part of the Master Plan update, the District desired to take a closer look at pumping capacity including
more accurately addressing pump station “firm” capacity and planning to accommodate off‐peak
pumping. The District conducted several field tests and observed SCADA data for a number of water pump
stations and prepared updated firm capacity recommendations for each pump station. Firm capacity is
based on the largest pump out of service and actual pumping rates of the remaining pumps. This takes
into consideration local hydraulic constraints and normal wear of pumps.
The ability to off‐peak pump has become more critical in managing and controlling energy costs.
Historically, the District has designed pump stations to supply the total MDD over a 24‐hour pumping
period. Since maximum days only occur in the summer months, most of the year the pump station would
run less than 24 hours. However, given the high cost due to demand charges to operate during peak time,
the District has transitioned to off‐peak pumping schedules, where feasible. Through close coordination
with SDG&E, the District has established time of use schedules for all the pump stations to accommodate
the most favorable rate. For the purposes of the Master Plan, required pumping capacities by pressure
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-18
March 2016
zone have been shown based on a preferred 16‐hour period and 24‐hour MDD pumping periods. For
closed zones only, the peak hour demand has been shown, which must be met in addition to maximum
day plus fire flow.
The pumping calculations for supplying primary pressure zones are cumulative and include demands for
the direct pumped zone and all zones above. Table 5‐10 and Table 5‐11 present the pump station capacity
analysis for the existing system for the North and South Districts, respectively.
As with operational storage needs, the reduced system‐wide MDD has improved pump station capacities.
In most cases, especially for the smaller zones, the District has sufficient MDD capacity to pump over 16‐
hour period. However, the Central Area pressure zone future demands will likely increase the pumping
requirements and need for increased pump station capacity.
Phase II (2020) and Phase III (2050) Storage and Pumping Analysis
Water storage and pumping analysis were developed for 2020 and 2050 demand conditions based on the
projected water demands by pressure zone. Appendix D presents the Phase II and Phase III storage and
pumping analysis findings based upon the water demand forecast and the design criteria. Section 5.6
presents a summary of the storage and pumping needs by major water system coupled with any additional
system requirements. As expected, high growth areas such as the 980 zone will need to upgrade pumping
and storage capacity.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-19
March 2016
Table 5-8 North District Existing Distribution Storage Analysis
Reservoir Facility ID (Name) Year Built Material
Existing Zone AAD Zones Supported AAD Max/ Avg PF
MDD (ADD x PF)
Capacity (MG)
Required Storage per Design Criteria (MG) Surplus/ (Deficit) (MG)
Net Surplus (MG) (gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) Operational (0.30 x MDD) Fire Emergency (1.0 x MDD) Total
La Presa System
640(1) 640‐1 2008 Concrete 1,043 1.50 0.13 2.32 2,625 3.78 10.0 1.13 1.20 3.78 6.11 13.89 13.89 640‐2 2008 Concrete 10.0
657 657‐1 (1‐1 Reservoir) 1957 Steel 290 0.42 2.68 776 1.12 1.0 0.34 0.18 1.12 1.63 0.17 0.17 657‐2 (1‐1A Reservoir) 1990 Steel 0.8
850(2)
850‐1 (20‐1 Reservoir) 1959 Steel
1,744 2.51 0.05 2.18 3,877 5.58
1.1
1.68 0.63 5.58 7.89 1.51 1.51 850‐2 (20‐1 Reservoir) 1976 Steel 3.0
850‐3 (20‐2 Reservoir) 1984 Steel 3.1
850‐4 2008 Steel 2.2
1004 1004‐2 (Dictionary Hill Res) 2004 Steel 46 0.07 3.00 137 0.20 1.4 0.06 0.30 0.20 0.56 0.84 0.84
La Presa Total 3,122 4.50 0.18 32.6 3.20 2.31 10.68 16.19 16.41 16.41
Hillsdale System
803(4)
803‐2 (20‐3 Reservoir) 1979 Steel
1,326 1.91 2.25 2,983 4.30
2.0
1.29 1.20 4.30 6.78 3.22 3.22 803‐3 (Singing Hills Res) 1986 Steel 2.2
803‐4 (Vista Grande Res) 2006 Steel 5.8
978 978‐1 (3‐2 Reservoir) 1959 Steel 601 0.87 2.47 1,485 2.14 0.5 0.64 0.24 2.14 3.02 (0.02) (0.02) 978‐2 (Filiponi Reservoir) 1992 Rec. Conc. 2.5
1200 1200‐1 (Grant Reservoir) 1996 Steel 106 0.15 2.85 303 0.44 1.0 0.13 0.24 0.44 0.81 0.19 0.19
Hillsdale System Total 2,033 2.93 0.00 14.0 2.06 1.68 6.87 10.61 3.39 3.39
Regulatory System
520 520‐2 (Regulatory Reservoir) 1983 Steel 120 0.17 2.85 343 0.49 5.1 0.15 1.20 0.49 1.84 23.26 23.26 520‐3 (Regulatory Reservoir) 1992 Rec. Conc. 20.0
832 832‐1 (2‐1 Reservoir) 1962 Concrete 206 0.30 2.75 567 0.82 0.9 0.25 0.72 0.82 1.78 1.12 1.12 832‐2 (2‐1A Reservoir) 1991 Steel 2.0
944 944‐1 (9‐1 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 3 0.005 3.00 10 0.01 0.3 0.00 0.72 0.01 0.74 2.66 2.66 944‐2 (9‐1A Reservoir) 1992 Steel 3.1
1090 1090‐1 (2‐2 Reservoir) 1962 Concrete 12 0.02 3.00 35 0.05 0.5 0.02 0.30 0.05 0.37 0.13 0.13
1296(4)
1296‐1 (9‐2 Reservoir) 1962 Steel
361 0.52 0.04 2.58 1,010 1.45
1.0
0.44 1.20 1.45 3.09 1.91 1.91 1296‐2 (9‐2A Reservoir) 1991 Steel 2.0
1296‐3 2010 Concrete 2.0
1485 1485‐1 (9‐3 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 157 0.23 2.85 447 0.64 0.3 0.19 0.18 0.64 1.02 0.88 0.88 1485‐2 (9‐3A Reservoir) 2006 Steel 1.6
Regulatory System Total 859 1.24 0.04 38.8 1.04 4.32 3.48 8.84 29.96 29.96
North District Totals 6,015 8.66 0.22 85.4 6.31 8.31 21.0 35.64 49.76 49.76
MDD = Maximum Day Demand
(1) Storage for the 640 zone includes demands for the reduced 493 zone.
(2) Includes demands for the 1050 Pointe hydropneumatic system.
(3) Includes demands for the 860 Cottonwood hydropneumatic system.
(4) Includes demands for the 1530 Vista Diego and 1655 Rancho Jamul hydropneumatic systems.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-20
March 2016
Table 5-9 South District Existing Distribution Storage Analysis
Reservo
ir Facility ID (Name)
Year
Built Material
Existing Zone
AAD Zones
Supported
AAD
Max/
Avg PF
MDD
(ADD x PF)
Capacity
(MG)
Required Storage per Design Criteria (MG) Surplus/
(Deficit)
(MG)
Net
Surplus
(MG) (gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD)
Operational
(0.30 x MDD) Fire
Emergency
(1.0 x MDD) Total
Central System
458 458‐1 (10‐1 Reservoir) 1964 Steel 687 0.99 2.45 1,684 2.43 0.8 0.73 1.20 2.43 4.35 (1.75) 458‐2 (10‐2 Reservoir) 1967 Steel 1.8
485 485‐1 (22‐2 Reservoir) 1983 Steel 316 0.46 2.62 829 1.19 1.0 0.36 1.20 1.19 2.75 (1.75)
624(1)
624‐1 (Patzig Reservoir) 1999 Earth.
Emb. 1,846 2.66 0.56 2.13 4,767 6.86
12.4
2.06 1.20 6.86 10.12 40.38 36.87 624‐2 (22‐3 Reservoir) 1988 Steel 8.1
624‐3 (Eastlake) 1997 Rec. Conc. 30
711(2)
711‐1 (22‐1 Reservoir) 1976 Steel
4,256 6.13 0.17 1.95 8,519 12.27
3.1
3.68 1.20 12.27 17.15 4.25 4.25 711‐2 (22‐1A Reservoir) 1993 Steel 2.3
711‐3 (22‐1B Reservoir) 2002 Earth.
Emb. 16.0
980(3) 980‐1 (22‐4 Reservoir) 1985 Steel 3,702 5.33 0.13 1.98 7,494 10.79 5.0 3.24 1.20 10.79 15.23 (5.23) (5.23) 980‐2 (22‐5 Reservoir) 1989 Steel 5.0
Total Central System 10,807 15.56 0.86 85.5 10.06 6.00 33.54 49.61 35.89 35.89
Otay Mesa System
571 571‐1 (Roll Reservoir) 1993 Earth.
Emb. 0 0.00 0.00 3.00 0 0.00 36.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.70 36.70
870 870‐1 (Upper Reservoir) 1993 Earth.
Emb. 2,006 2.89 2.15 4313 6.21 11.0 1.86 1.20 6.21 9.27 1.73 1.73
Total Otay Mesa System 2,006 2.89 0.00 47.7 1.86 1.20 6.21 9.27 38.43 38.43
Total South District 12,813 18.45 0.9 133.2 11.93 7.20 39.75 58.88 74.32 74.32
MDD = Maximum Day Demand
(1) Includes demands for the 340 reduced system. Storage deficit for the 458 and 485 zones included in the 624 reservoirs.
(2) Includes demands for the 580 reduced system.
(3) Includes demands for the 1100 hydropneumatic system.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-21
March 2016
Table 5-10 North District Existing Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump Station Pump Unit
Rated Capacity Firm Capacity
Zone AAD (gpm)
Zones
Supported AAD (gpm)
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand (gpm) Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour Peak Hour 16-Hour 24-Hour Peak Hour 16-Hour
La Presa System
850‐2(2)
1 2,000 2.88
6,000 8.64 1,744 322 4,442 8,367 6,662 1,558 (2,367) (662)
2 2,000 2.88
3 2,000 2.88
4 2,000 2.88
5(1) ‐‐ ‐‐
1004‐2
1 500 0.72
1,000 1.44 46 0 137 320 206 863 680 794 2 500 0.72
3 500 0.72
1050 Pointe Hydro
1 240 0.35
240 0.35 32 0 97 227 146 143 13 94 2 240 0.35
3(3) 1,500 2.16
Hillsdale System
803‐1(4)
1 2,800 4.03
11,200 16.13 1,326 708 4,372 8,235 6,558 6,828 2,965 4,642
2 2,800 4.03
3 2,800 4.03
4 2,800 4.03
5 2,800 4.03
6(1) ‐‐
978‐1(6)
1 850 1.22
2,250 3.24 601 106 1,734 3,539 2,601 516 (1,289) (351) 2 850 1.22
3 700 1.01
4 700 1.01
1200‐1
1 500 0.72
1,000 1.44 106 0 303 670 455 697 330 545 2 500 0.72
3 500 0.72
Cottonwood Hydro
(860)
1 70 0.10 100 0.14 13 0 38 88 56 62 12 44 2 70 0.10
Regulatory System
832‐1(4)
1 2,100 3.02
4,200 6.05 206 560 1,861 3,782 2,792 2,339 418 1,408
2 2,100 3.02
3(1) ‐‐ ‐‐
4(1) ‐‐ ‐‐
5(1) ‐‐ ‐‐
6 2,100 3.02
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-22
March 2016
Table 5-10 North District Existing Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump Station Pump Unit
Rated Capacity Firm Capacity
Zone AAD (gpm)
Zones
Supported AAD (gpm)
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand (gpm) Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour Peak Hour 16-Hour 24-Hour Peak Hour 16-Hour
1090‐1 1 280 0.40 280 0.40 12 0 35 81 52 245 199 228 2 280 0.40
944‐1(5)
1 650 0.94
3,000 4.32 3 549 1,380 2,843 2,070 1,620 157 930 2 650 0.94
3 1,700 2.45
4 1,700 2.45
1296‐1(4)
1 1,750 2.52
2,900 4.18 361 188 1,372 2,826 2,058 1,528 74 842
2 575 0.83
3 575 0.83
4(1) ‐‐ ‐‐
5 1,750 2.52
1485‐2
1 450 0.65
900 1.30 157 0 447 988 670 453 (88) 230 2 450 0.65
3 450 0.65
Rancho Jamul Hydro
(1655)
1 350 0.50
620 0.89 11 0 34 79 51 586 541 569 2 350 0.50
3 230 0.33
4 40 0.06
Vista Diego Hydro
(1530)
1 260 0.37
260 0.37 20 0 59 138 88 201 122 172 2 260 0.37
3(2) 1,100 1.58
Note: Facilities as of April 2015
AAD = Average Annual Demand
(1) Space provided for an additional pump if needed.
(2) 1050 and 657 zone demands served from this zone.
(3) Fire service pump only.
(4) Demands from all zones in this service district higher than this zone are served by this zone.
(5) Demands from all zones in this service district higher than this zone are served by this zone, other than the 1090 zone.
(6) 1200 zone demands served from this zone.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.4 Distribution Storage and Pumping Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-23
March 2016
Table 5-11 South District Existing Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump Station
Pump
Unit
Rated Capacity Firm Capacity
Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand (gpm) Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour Peak Hour 16-Hour 24-Hour Peak Hour 16-Hour
Central Area
711‐1(1)
1 2,500 3.6
10,000 14.40 4,256 120 8,519 14,733 12,778 1,481 (4,733) (2,778)
2 2,500 3.60
3 2,500 3.60
4 2,500 3.60
5 2,500 3.60
980‐1(2)
1 4,000 5.76
8,000 11.52 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 8,000 8,000 2 4,000 5.76
3 4,000 5.76
980‐2
1 4,000 5.76
12,000 17.3 3,702 0 7,354 13,080 11,031 4,646 (1,080) 969
2 4,000 5.76
3 4,000 5.76
4 4,000 5.76
5(3) ‐‐ ‐‐
6(3) ‐‐ ‐‐
1100 (Rolling Hills
Ranch)
1 65 0.09
845 1.22 87 0 262 612 394 583 233 451 2 780 1.12
3 780 1.12
4(4) 1,750 2.52
Otay Mesa
870‐1(5)
1 2,000 2.88
11,000 15.84 2,006 0 4,313 8,125 6,470 6,687 2,875 4,530
2 2,000 2.88
3 3,500 5.04
4 3,500 5.04
5 3,500 5.04
571
1 6,850 9.86
13,700 19.73 0 0 4,3133 8,125 6,470 9,387 5,575 7,230 2 6,850 9.86
3 6,850 9.86
Temporary LOPS(6) 1 12,500 18.00 12,500 18.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐12,500 12,500 12,500
Note: Facilities as of April 2015
AAD = Average Annual Demand
(1) 580 zone served from 711 zone.
(2) 980‐1 PS for emergency only. Used as a backup to the 980‐2 PS.
(3) Space provided for an additional pump if needed.
(4) Fire service pump only.
(5) 870‐1 Station to be replaced with 870‐2. PDR produced in 2014.
(6) Temporary Lower Otay PS for emergency use only. To be replaced with a permanent station in the future.
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.5 Distribution System Hydraulic Model
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-24
March 2016
5.5 Distribution System Hydraulic Model
The purpose of this section is to describe the development of a new GIS‐based hydraulic model of the
District’s existing and future water systems. The new InfoWater Model (by Innovyze) was used to evaluate
the existing water system and determine CIP projects throughout the service area based on planning
criteria and growth forecasts.
5.5.1 Existing Model Development
New hydraulic models for the potable and recycled water systems were developed using the District’s GIS
database as the source information for pipes, junctions, valves, pumps and tanks using the modeling
software InfoWater.
Relevant information such as diameter, length, material, installation year and pressure zone was included
in the model and updated using the VPN access to the District’s GIS, where necessary, for all facilities.
Node elevations were obtained from GIS topography using contours provided by the District. Storage
tanks were annotated with capacity, high water level (HWL), diameter, and height. Pressure reducing
valve set points, pump station controls, and other operational settings were obtained from District
engineering and operations staff through workshops, existing hydraulic models and detailed review of
computerized system operational data information. Locations of closed valves were confirmed using the
District’s as‐built drawing information and meetings with District operations staff and were updated in
the GIS.
Detailed hydraulic computer models are required to analyze the complex operation of the District’s water
systems. The steps of model formulation include obtaining the system’s physical data, translating the
physical data into a network of nodes and links, determining pressure zone boundaries, inputting accurate
water demands, and calibrating the model to match the District’s operational field data.
The computer model includes all the major transmission and distribution mains from the GIS. The model
was developed such that these facilities are identified; future facilities will not be modeled as part of the
existing system.
The hydraulic software InfoWater was utilized throughout the model development, calibration, and
analysis of the District’s systems. This software has the capability to read directly from GIS data in order
to create the necessary facilities for the model. All relevant information was pulled directly from the GIS,
rather than having to digitize and input by hand. One critical aspect is that the GIS and model must
maintain a “one‐to‐one” relationship with any features used to build the model. This synchronization is
described in the following section with development of a “Sync Plan.” In addition, this software allows for
more efficient future model updates from GIS data as the District continues to build out, as further
described in Section 5.5.2 below.
Once the network and facility data were validated, the hydraulic models were populated with existing and
future average demands for each parcel within the District’s water service area.
5.5.2 Synchronization (Sync) Plan
As an integral part of the model development the District desires to have a model that has a 1 to 1 relation
with its GIS so that the model can be updated simply in the future. The model was constructed by Atkins
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.5 Distribution System Hydraulic Model
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-25
March 2016
and various changes to the GIS were recommended to allow for future updating of the model per the
scope of work. The District requested that a Synchronization (Sync) Plan be prepared to accompany the
model. The Sync Plan developed and contained herein was designed to guide a GIS and InfoWater
proficient individual through the model synchronization process. The hydraulic model was constructed
using the District’s most recent GIS, which at the time was a static snapshot on February 19, 2015.
Appendix F includes the Sync Plan.
5.5.3 Existing Model Calibration
Once the hydraulic model was developed, a “macro” calibration approach was performed, which
compares field data over an extended period of time to the model. The first stage to developing a macro‐
calibrated model is to obtain current Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) information from
the District. This real‐time field data, such as reservoir trends, SDCWA water deliveries, and pump station
flows, was collected over period in July 2013. This period included the peak day on the maximum demand
month for the 2013 calendar year. Reservoir levels and pump station operations were analyzed to
determine the diurnal demand patterns for several areas within the District’s system. Each individual
pressure zone was analyzed at hourly increments to determine net changes in storage and pumped flows
to estimate change in water demand. The diurnal patterns that were produced from this effort were then
compared against those used in the 2009 WRMP. Figure 5‐2 is an example of diurnal patterns developed
for the three major pressure zones within the Central Service Area. These particular patterns show that
the minimum daily flow for the combined system is approximately 45 percent of the average daily demand
in the early afternoon, while the peak for the 980 zone is nearly 2.2 times the average day demand.
Figure 5-2 Model Diurnal Patterns
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 4 8 12162024
Pe
a
k
i
n
g
Fa
c
t
o
r
Hour
624 PZ
711 PZ
980 PZ
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.5 Distribution System Hydraulic Model
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-26
March 2016
Diurnal demand patterns, initial tank levels, and pump operations were then input into the hydraulic
model to determine an analytical baseline. During macro calibration it is possible to find areas that require
further analysis, in which case special equipment can be set up in the field to test flows and pressures at
different times. This process can often identify problem areas in the field, such as partially closed valves,
leaking pipes, or other areas of concern. The more the model can reasonably simulate actual field
conditions, the more accurate the results are. For this WRMP Update, no field analysis was required. The
availability of SCADA data and knowledge of Operations staff was sufficient to macro‐calibrate the model
to a reasonable level of confidence. In addition, early in the master plan process it was determined given
the drought and water conservation measures that no hydrant flow tests were to be performed. A matrix
was developed to summarize the level of confidence in the model’s ability to simulate actual conditions.
Table 5‐8 presents the level of confidence for each modeled pressure zone based on a range from low
(1.0) to high (3.0). Additional model calibration information, such as tank levels and pump station
operations, is included in Appendix E.
As noted in Table 5‐12, many areas within the model produced excellent results, showing steady patterns
and matching the SCADA data observed for those days well. Figure 5‐3 and Figure 5‐4 show the calibrated
model results for the 711 reservoirs and 711‐1 PS, respectively, which closely matched the SCADA field
data. The 711‐3 reservoir is not shown in Figure 5‐2 because the data collected for that day was flawed.
Table 5-12 Potable Water Model Level of Confidence by Zone(1)
Pressure
Zone Facility
Reservoir/Tank(2) Pumping(3) Level of
Confidence(4) Model Trend SCADA Match Flow Time
458 458‐1 Res 3 1.5 NA NA 2.25
458‐2 Res 3 1.5 NA NA Moderately High
485 485‐1 Res 1 1.5 NA NA 1.25
520 520‐2 Res 2 2 NA NA 2.00
520‐3 Res 2 2 NA NA Moderate
571 571‐1 Res 3 3 NA NA 3.00 ‐ High
624
624‐1 Res 2 1.5 NA NA 1.75
624‐2 Res 1 1 NA NA Moderately Low
624‐3 Res 2.5 2.5 NA NA Moderately Low
640 640‐1 Res 2 2 NA NA 2.00
640‐2 Res 2 2 NA NA Moderate
657
657‐1 Res 3 3 NA NA 3.00
657‐2 Res 3 3 NA NA 3.00
657‐1 PS(4) NA NA ‐‐ ‐‐ High
711
711‐1 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.88
711‐2 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.88
711‐3 Res 3 3 NA NA High
711‐1 PS NA NA 3 2 High
803
803‐2 Res 2.5 3 NA NA 2.25
803‐3 Res 2 2 NA NA 2.25
803‐4 Res 2 2 NA NA Moderately High
803‐1 PS NA NA 3 1.5 Moderately High
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.5 Distribution System Hydraulic Model
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-27
March 2016
Table 5-12 Potable Water Model Level of Confidence by Zone(1)
Pressure
Zone Facility
Reservoir/Tank(2) Pumping(3) Level of
Confidence(4) Model Trend SCADA Match Flow Time
832
832‐1 Res 2 2 NA NA 1.83
832‐2 Res 2 2 NA NA 1.83
832‐1 PS NA NA 1.5 1.5 Moderately Low
850
850‐2 Res 3 2.5 NA NA 2.75
850‐3 Res 3 2.5 NA NA 2.75
850‐4 Res 3 2.5 NA NA High
850‐2 PS NA NA 2.5 3 High
870 870‐1 Res 3 3 NA NA 3.00
870‐1 PS(4) NA NA NA NA High
944
944‐1 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.83
944‐2 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.83
944‐1 PS NA NA 2.5 2.5 High
978
978‐1 Res 2.5 2.5 NA NA 2.42
978‐2 Res 2.5 2.5 NA NA 2.42
978‐1 PS NA NA 2.5 2 Moderately High
980
980‐1 Res 3 2 NA NA 2.50
980‐2 Res 3 2 NA NA 2.50
980‐1 PS NA NA NA NA Moderately High
980‐2 PS NA NA 2.5 2.5 Moderately High
1004 1004‐2 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.50
1004‐1 PS NA NA 2 2 Moderately High
1090 1090‐1 Res 2 2 NA NA 2.00
1090‐1 PS(4) NA NA ‐‐ ‐‐ Moderately High
1200 1200‐1 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.50
1200‐1 PS NA NA 2 2 High
1296
1296‐1 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.63
1296‐2 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.63
1296‐3 Res 2 1 NA NA Moderately High
1296‐1 PS NA NA 3 3 Moderately High
1485
1485‐1 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.50
1485‐2 Res 3 3 NA NA 2.50
1485‐1 PS NA NA 1 2 Moderately High
Note: Facilities as of February 2015
(1) Tanks must show a repeating trend over the course of the calibration period. That trend was then rated on how well it
matched the SCADA information
(2) Rates how well the total flow and duration of pumping matched the SCADA information
(3) Rated Level of Confidence in that system: < 1.75 : Low; 1.75 to 2.5 Moderate; > 2.4 High
(4) SCADA information was not available
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.5 Distribution System Hydraulic Model
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-28
March 2016
Figure 5-3 711 Reservoirs, Model Calibration Results
Figure 5-4 711 Pump Station, Model Calibration Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 122436486072
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Le
v
e
l
,
Ft
Time
711‐1 Reservoir SCADA
711‐2 Reservoir SCADA
711‐1 Reservoir Model Results
711‐2 Reservoir Model Results
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72
Pu
m
p
St
a
t
i
o
n
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
711‐1 PS SCADA
711‐1 PS Model Results
Time
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-29
March 2016
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System
Improvements
This section summarizes the major proposed potable water facilities necessary to address existing system
deficiencies and meet future demands and planned growth in the District. The North District needs are
primarily reliability driven, except for a few planned development areas. In contrast, the South District
needs are primarily growth driven by large‐scale residential village developments within the Otay Ranch
General Plan Development area and the City of San Diego’s recently adopted Otay Mesa Community Plan
Update area. It is anticipated that developers will construct a majority of the planned water infrastructure,
in particular water distribution facilities within local streets and major circulation roadways. The District
will typically be the lead on major storage, pumping and transmission pipeline improvement projects.
Historically, the District had categorized water transmission mains 16‐inch and larger as a District CIP
project and included them in the analysis to determine water capacity fees. As part of the master plan
update, CIP projects were primarily identified and noted based on the regional benefit in serving the water
system including multiple development areas and/or reliability to the water system. In particular, as the
Central Service Area builds out, there are fewer major roadway projects connecting developments and
therefore fewer CIP projects anticipated.
The remaining section includes a CIP project summary and description by major water system. Chapter 7
presents the detailed CIP list and recommended phasing.
5.6.1 La Presa System
The La Presa water system is nearing build‐out and should continue to be supplied from the east via FCF
14 and the 640 regulatory reservoirs. As water demands have been reduced it becomes important for the
District to maximize use of FCF 14 based on the terms of the water purchase agreement with the SDCWA.
Redundancy to the system is provided by FCF 11 which offers the service area two independent water
supplies.
The only remaining areas to develop include the former Pointe Resort site near the District’s office and
the Dictionary Hill area. More specifically, the Dictionary Hill area includes a new development proposal
“Private Drive Estates” for 300 single family units and the Pointe Resort area includes the Lakeshore
project with 100 single family units. These two developments account for the projected increase in water
demand of 15% in the system. Each of these areas would require developer constructed facilities for water
service. With limited development remaining, no capacity projects are required. Lastly, the District should
consider converting the 657 zone which was created when served by the now‐demolished La Presa PS, to
the larger 640 zone while still accepting reduced flow from the 850 zone though existing PRVs, in order to
improve service efficiencies and reduce maintenance of facilities. A summary of CIP is included below:
Existing System Projects
■ Operational: Conversion of 657 to 640 zones: Requires abandonment and removal of the two
existing 657 reservoirs, piping interconnections and one new redundant PRS to ensure fire flows
can be met. (P2584)
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-30
March 2016
■ System Reliability: Add a new 16‐inch pipeline in the 850 zone in Jamacha Boulevard northeast
of Sweetwater Springs Road to provide an additional transmission pipeline to the zone and
increase transmission capacity to the southern 850 reservoirs. (P2148)
■ Replacement: Replacement of aging and difficult to access pipelines in the 640 zone with a new
12‐inch water line in Osage Drive and Jamacha Road between Dorchester and Elkelton. (P2516)
Future System Projects
■ Capital Facility: Future development of Dictionary Hill area will require a new 1200 zone booster
pump system and storage reservoir, which will be largely the responsibility of the new
development. (P2585)
■ Capacity: Additionally, to serve the Dictionary Hill area with fire flow in emergencies, upgrades to
transmission pipeline in the 1004 zone will also be required. (P2407)
■ System Reliability: The existing 1050 hydropnuematic pump station will need to be improved to
maintain service reliability. (P2393)
■ System Reliability: The District should consider a possible redundant supply source from
Sweetwater Authority for a major Pipeline No. 4 outage. The projects required to access this
source would be a 10,000 gpm pump station near the Perdue WTP and the northern portion of
the 30‐inch Otay Interconnect Pipeline (P2511). (P2391)
■ Storage: Should the OMCDSP not be implemented, a new emergency 10 MG reservoir at the
existing 640 reservoir site should be constructed to provide additional storage for an outage or
emergency scenario. (P2233)
5.6.2 Hillsdale System
The Hillsdale water system is nearly built‐out and the water system operates with three pumped zones
(803, 860, 978, and 1200). There are no capacity projects required throughout the system as demands are
forecasted to change very little and the system is properly designed and operated. However, should the
District wish to change to a 16‐hour refilling of maximum day demands for its operating strategy for pump
stations and reservoirs, the 978 zone will be slightly under capacity. The far eastern area of the water
system, in particular the 803 zone, has relatively low demand and is isolated which causes water to age
considerably and can create water quality maintenance challenges.
It is recommended that the District consider a second 978 PS to be located at the 2.1 MG 803‐3 reservoir
to reduce age of water to the east and serve as a redundant water pump station for the 978 zone currently
served from the west by one pump station. The District’s long dead end pipeline to the east in Dehesa
Road will continue to be a challenge to maintain water quality until an alternate supply connection to the
east can be made. A summary of CIP needs therefore include:
Existing System Projects
■ Water Quality/Capacity: Construction of a new 1,500 gpm 978‐2 PS co‐located at the 803‐3
reservoir site to provide redundant supply to the 978 zone. This will also improve turnover of the
803‐3 reservoir and, therefore by association, water quality in the 803 zone system to the east of
the reservoir, particularly the dead end pipeline in Dehesa Road. (P2256)
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-31
March 2016
■ Water Quality/Water Supply: An interconnection to the Padre Dam MWD water system,
extended northward from the dead end 803 zone 16‐inch line in Dehesa Road. This could be used
under emergency situations only or as a two‐way normal connection which would improve water
quality in this isolated region. (P2500)
■ Replacement: Several sections of pre‐1960’s era thin‐walled steel pipeline, which has been failing
at a high rate, have been identified for replacement in the Hillsdale system. Portions of the
pipelines of this material have already been replaced, with the remaining sections along Hillsdale
Road (P2573) in the 803 zone and along Vista Grande, Vista Vereda, and Pence Drive (P2574) in
the 803 and 978 zones to be replaced.
Future System Projects
■ Water Supply: An emergency interconnection to the Helix WD on Chase Avenue which could
serve the 978 zone in an emergency. (P2517)
5.6.3 Regulatory System
The Regulatory water system is typically a low density service area and is approaching build‐out, although
there are a few areas of infill development anticipated as well as a large development area. The system
consists of several pumped zones (832, 944, 1090, 1296, 1485, 1530 and 1655) and a reduced zone (932).
Several of the pumped zones are in series (832, 944 and 1296) moving water from the west and the border
with the Hillsdale zone to the east where much of the demand in the system resides.
Water demands are projected to increase nearly 30 percent in this system, the largest growth in demand
in the North District. The most significant development will be the proposed Village 14 project, which
includes a consolidation of planned residential units from Villages 16 and 19 which are part of the
approved Otay Ranch General Development Plan. These former units will be “clustered” and shifted to
Village 14. Villages 16 and 19 will be left as open space and will not require water service. Only the higher
elevations of Village 14 will be served by the Regulatory System. The lower elevations of Village 14 will be
served by an expansion of water facilities, from the existing 980 zone, through Proctor Valley and are
discussed under the Central System below. A few smaller infill projects are proposed in the Regulatory
System including the Simpson Farm project along Campo Road in Jamul (about 100 residential units).
Previous water master plans for the District have included a fourth 1296 reservoir to provide increased
emergency water storage for 10‐day shut downs and to serve as a terminal reservoir under an operating
scenario where the South and North Districts are interconnected through Proctor Valley. As part of this
master plan update, this interconnect supply concept was evaluated and has been revised, resulting in
smaller sized reliability infrastructure based on the following:
■ Full redundancy through Proctor Valley for all three North District systems will require extensive
infrastructure upgrades through the North District and is not cost effective to serve a total future
average demand of about 10 MGD.
■ Providing redundancy for only the Regulatory System, which is projected to serve a future average
demand of 1.6 MGD, appears more efficient and can be accomplished with much of the existing
piping and minimal upsizing of planned Village 14 transmission mains (12/16‐inch to 20‐inch).
■ The District’s proposed Otay Interconnect Pipeline, west of Sweetwater Reservoir, provides
significantly more capacity and flexibility to move water from the South (624 zone) to the North
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-32
March 2016
(640 zone) and vice versa, while maximizing supply to each District (North and South) without
substantial local system or zone improvements.
Based on the InfoWater modeling, the water system performs well with few capacity related
recommendations found. The primary conveyance needs are to move water during off peak pumping
and/or reliability needs between pressure zones. The closed 1655 zone will be better served with a new
small reservoir. The 1090 zone may need additional storage, however, a possible solution may be to
expand the existing pump station (with closed zone capacity) to operate when the existing reservoir is out
of service. A summary of CIP needs include:
Existing System Projects
■ Replacement/Operations: The existing 1090‐1 PS has reached its useful life and will require
replacement in the near future. An upgraded 1090‐1 PS is recommended to replace the existing
one, with closed pressure zone ability to serve the zone should the 1090‐1 reservoir be out of
service. The closed pressure zone criteria allows for the removal of the recommendation for an
additional reservoir in the 1090 zone for operational redundancy. (P2174)
■ Operations: The District is currently in planning to add a 0.5 MG reservoir to the 1655 zone to
change it from a closed zone to an open zone. (P2040)
Future System Projects
■ System Reliability: Install a 12‐inch pipeline along Olive Vista Drive from Ma Lou Drive to
Kemberly Lane that will connect dead end pipelines in the 1485 zone. (P2156)
■ System Reliability: Install a 12‐inch pipeline (upsizing of developer’s 8‐inch and 10‐inch pipelines)
and PRS at Jamul Highlands Road and Presilla Drive which will connect the 1485 zone to the 1296
zone and allow for an alternative supply to the eastern 1296 zone during peak or emergency
periods. (P2575, P2190, P2588)
■ Capital Facility: The Village 14 development along Proctor Valley Road will be required to build
storage to serve operational, emergency and fire flow storage to its customers. The 1296‐4
reservoir is projected at 2 MG of storage (upsized from developer’s 1.3. MG required storage).
The reservoir is connected to the 1296 system backbone by a 16‐inch pipeline (upsized from
developer’s 12‐inch pipeline). (P2142, P2591)
■ Capital Facility/District Reliability: The Village 14 development along Proctor Valley Road will be
required to construct pumping and transmission capacity from the 980 zone in the south along
Proctor Valley Road all the way to the 1296 zone in the north to provide two sources of supply to
serve the development. The District can access additional transmission capacity to facilitate
conveyance of water from south to north through this pipeline. Accordingly, the size of this line is
20‐inch (upsized from developer’s 12‐inch pipeline for P2181) to accomplish that purpose. The
Proctor Valley PS (P2002) is upsized from the developer’s pumping rate of 1,055 gpm to 4,000
gpm. (P2002, P2058, P2171, P2181, P2203, P2204)
■ System Reliability: Install a 16‐inch pipeline in Melody Road to provide an additional transmission
path to the eastern edge of the District in the 1296 zone. (P2033)
■ System Reliability: Install a 16‐inch pipeline in Jefferson Road between Campo and Lyons to
provide an additional transmission path to the northern edge of the 1296 zone. (P2587)
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-33
March 2016
■ Capacity: Existing 8‐inch and 10‐inch pipelines in Jamul Drive should be replaced with a 16‐inch
pipeline to allow for capacity to the northern edge of the 1296 zone. (P2056)
■ Capacity/System Reliability/Replacement: A series of pump station, pipeline and PRS projects
have been recommended to provide transmission system upgrades to the series pumping system
used in the Regulatory System (832 to 944 to 1296) which would allow the transmission of large
quantities of flow from the La Presa and Hillsdale Systems to the Regulatory System and vice versa
through PRS upgrades. Additionally, pipeline failures have been experienced along the existing
series pumping system and this transmission system will need to be replaced as the existing one
reaches its useful life. (P2379, P2248, P2202, P2195, P2196, P2197, P2198, P2188, P2586, P2053,
P2411, P2412)
5.6.4 Central Area System
The Central Area water system has substantial growth remaining primarily in eastern Chula Vista and
unincorporated areas in the County. Water demands are projected to increase nearly 50 percent in this
area, which already serves the largest water system by demand in the District.
The most significant new development will be the build‐out of the southern portion of Otay Ranch along
the SR 125 , including Villages 8, 9 and 10, and the City of Chula Vista’s University site. In addition, to the
west of SR 125, Villages 3 and 4 will complete the remaining pieces of the Otay Ranch development plan
area. Within the current Otay Ranch area, the District will see continued development of Village 2 and the
Millenia Development (formerly known as Eastern Urban Center Planning Area 12). Village 13 (the Resort
Parcel) and Village 14, located east and north of Lower Otay Reservoir in the County of San Diego, are
moving through the entitlement process. As part of their development planning, each project will require
major extensions of District water facilities, including the construction of water storage facilities.
The District requires the preparation of individual project water studies, known as Subarea Master Plans
(SAMPs), to document onsite and offsite facilities that are required to serve developments. For the Otay
Ranch area, completed SAMPs were reviewed and the backbone facilities proposed in the SAMPs were
incorporated into the 2050 InfoWater model and evaluated from an overall Central system planning need.
Based on the InfoWater modeling, the water system generally performs well with some minor capacity
constraints. The primary transmission projects will be completed concurrent with development projects
in the south Otay Ranch area. Increased water storage in the 980 zone is a high priority due to existing
system deficiencies. The 711 zone would benefit from the replacement of the existing 711 PS to provide
more efficient operations and restore lost capacity from the downsizing of the station in 2011. The service
area size of the 711 and 624 zones require additional pressure reducing stations to ensure reliable service
and provide flexibility to meet peak demands for a higher zone. This master plan recommends the District
include a new 624 zone transmission main from the existing Otay Mesa interconnect pipeline to serve the
most southerly reaches of Villages 8, 9 and 10. This will eventually complete a looped supply of the
southern portion of the 624 zone and reduce future occurrences of pumping water to the 711 zone and
then feeding back down to the 624 zone.
A summary of the Central System major CIP needs are described below:
Existing System Projects
■ System Reliability: The District is planning an interconnection between the North and South
Districts which includes: a 30‐inch interconnect pipeline, a pump station and a pressure reducing
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-34
March 2016
station. The interconnection will allow transmission of flow both directions and will provide supply
reliability for both Service Area Districts, the North in particular. (P2511)
■ Operations: A 30‐inch manifold pipeline between the 624‐1 / 624‐3 reservoir site and the 624‐2
reservoir site will improve the ability of the 3 reservoirs to float together, which will improve the
performance of the Otay Interconnect Pipeline and the 624 zone as a whole. (P2528)
■ Operations: It is recommended that the District’s existing Temporary LOPS be rehabilitated in
order to last until such point as the District decides it is necessary to replace it with a permanent
station. (P2579)
■ Capacity: Replace and upsize existing 16‐inch pipeline on Paseo Ladera between Telegraph and
Olympic to 20‐inch in the 624 zone. (P2398)
Future System Projects
■ System Reliability: Two PRSs, one at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue and the other at Heritage
Road and Otay Valley Road, will provide supply to the 340 zone from the 624 zone from the east,
which will take transmission demand off of the existing pipeline and PRS on Brandywine Avenue
and eliminate the need for a pipeline project at that location. (P2405, P2554)
■ Capital Facility: The Village 13 development along Otay Lakes Road will be required to build
storage to serve operational, emergency and fire flow storage to its customers. The 980‐3
reservoir is projected at 4 MG, upsized from developer’s 2 MG required storage. (P2037)
■ Capital Facility: The Village 13 development will be required to build transmission capacity from
the 980 zone along Otay Lakes Road and to the proposed 980‐3 reservoir to provide supply to
serve its customers, upsized to 20‐inch from the projected developer required 12‐inch lines to
provide regional transmission of water to/from the reservoir. (P2135, P2137, P2138)
■ Capital Facility: In order to serve the development of Villages 8, 9 and 10 which are in the 711
zone, a series of 12‐inch and 16‐inch transmission pipelines (upsized from 8‐inch and 12‐inch
respectively) will need to be built primarily by the developers in existing and planned roads along
the northern border of the developments, such as La Media Road, Hunte Parkway and others.
(P2104, P2106, P2107, P2116)
■ Capital Facility: In order to support development of the 624 zone in the southern portions of Otay
Ranch, and maximize gravity supply, including Villages 3, 8, 9 and 10, it is recommended that a
20‐inch pipeline off of the Otay Mesa Interconnect be constructed to provide a looped service for
the 624 zone. (P2583)
■ Capital Facility: In order to serve Villages 3, 8, 9 and 10 in the 624 zone, the developers will
primarily be constructing a series of 16‐inch and 20‐inch transmission pipelines on the 624 zone
along what is planned to be Main Street, Otay Valley Road, and Heritage Road, with a majority of
the pipelines an upsize above the projected individual developments needs of 12‐inch
piping.(P2590, P2402, P2403, P2404, P2595, P2596, P2598, P2599, P2600)
■ Capital Facility: Proposed bridges on Main Street and Otay Valley Road that will cross Wolf Canyon
and SR 125 will not be constructed by the developers in this area, but the extension of the water
lines in these structures will be the responsibility of the developers. The developer required water
lines are projected at 8 to 12‐inch piping, with the District to upsize these lines to 16‐inch for
additional transmission capacity. Costs for the base 12‐inch water lines on the SR 125 bridges
(P2602 and P2603) are planned to be divided evenly between the developers of Village 8 East and
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-35
March 2016
Village 9. For the water line on the Wolf Canyon bridge (P2597), the costs of the pre‐upsized piping
is to be split between the developers of Village 3 North (75%) and Village 4 (25%) based upon the
estimated portion of the project on their respective properties.
■ Capital Facility: The Village 14 development along Proctor Valley Road will be required to build
the 980‐5 reservoir to provide storage to serve operational, emergency and fire flow storage to
its customers if a single pipeline along Proctor Valley Road is constructed. The reservoir is
projected to be 2.0 MG, an upsize of the estimated required developer needed 1.3 MG. (P2576)
■ Capital Facility/District Reliability: The Village 14 development along Proctor Valley Road will be
required to build transmission capacity from the 980 zone in the south along Proctor Valley Road
to the Proctor Valley (1296‐2) Pump Station. The District can access additional transmission
capacity to facilitate conveyance of water from south to north through this pipeline and has
placed the size of this line at a 20‐inch to accomplish that, an upsize from the projected developer
required 12‐inch pipeline. (P2430, P2435)
■ Replacement: Utilities will be relocated with the replacement of the Heritage Road Bridge in the
340 zone. (P2553)
■ Capacity: Installation of 16‐inch pipeline in East Palomar Street between Medical Center and
Raven in the 458 zone. (P2150)
■ Capacity: Provide parallel capacity to an existing bottleneck in Otay Lakes Road between Rutgers
Avenue and Eastlake Parkway in the 711 zone. (P2400)
■ Storage/Replacement: It is recommended that the District build a new 980‐4 storage reservoir at
the existing 980 reservoir site. This reservoir is currently recommended as 8 MG and the new
capacity could be used to replace an existing steel tank at the site as well as provide storage for a
forecasted storage deficit in the 980 zone. (P2431)
■ System Reliability: It is recommended that a 20‐inch 711 zone pipeline be constructed from Hunte
Parkway to the Olympic Training Center area as there is currently no supply redundancy into this
area. (P2122)
■ Capacity: The 980 zone is forecasted to have a significant pumping capacity deficiency. An
expansion to the existing 980‐2 pump station from 12,000 gpm to 16,000 gpm is recommended
to address the lack of capacity to serve future demands. (P2577)
■ Capacity: Due to an undersized suction header, pumps at the 711‐1 pump station were downrated
to 10,000 gpm from 16,000 gpm in 2011 and as a result the 711 zone is forecasted to have a
significant capacity deficiency. It is recommended that the station be replaced entirely with a
larger station designed for 16,000 gpm with appropriately sized suction and discharge facilities to
serve future demands. (P2578)
■ System Reliability: Install a 12‐inch pipeline in Bob Pletcher Parkway across the SR 125 Freeway
in the 980 zone. (P2580)
■ Capital Facility: Developer to install a 624 zone 16‐inch pipeline in Santa Victoria Road between
Olympic Parkway and Heritage Road to serve Village 2 West. (P2581)
■ Capacity: Upsize the existing 711 zone pipeline in Eastlake Parkway between Olympic Parkway
and Birch Road to a 20‐inch. (P2582)
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-36
March 2016
■ Storage: Should the OMCDSP not be implemented a new emergency 30 MG reservoir at the
existing 624 zone reservoir site should be constructed to provide additional storage for an outage
or emergency scenario.(P2235)
■ Capital Facility: Construction of the 624‐4 reservoir Disinfection Facility should accompany the
624‐4 reservoir to manage water quality in the 624‐4 reservoir and provide chlorination capability
to South District water. (P2437)
■ Water Supply: Should the OMCDSP not be implemented, the Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well
may provide the District with a new, local source of water supply of approximately 600 AFY.
(P2434)
■ Water Supply: Should the OMCDSP not be implemented and the District desire to establish a
normal supply connection or re‐establish its emergency supply capacity to the City of San Diego’s
Otay Water Treatment Plant, a permanent LOPS Facility should be constructed, potentially in two
phases. (P2392)
5.6.5 Otay Mesa System
The Otay Mesa water system has potential growth in an unincorporated area of the County, known as the
East Otay Mesa Specific Plan area. Additionally, the potential for a new, third, Border Crossing in this area
will likely drive industrial and commercial development in the area. The major planned developments
include Otay Crossings, Hawano, Otay Business Park and Sunroad. Residential development along the
western boundary of the District, in the City of San Diego, is programmed as part of the Otay Mesa
Community Plan update. High density development is proposed along the Siempre Viva Road corridor.
The District’s water system in Otay Mesa has a well‐developed backbone that is oversized due to its former
days as an agricultural center. The entire area is operated on the 870 pressure zone. Capacity
improvements are limited to additional storage to meet 2050 demands, and new transmission and
distribution facilities to support the system are not required. The large majority of new facilities planned
in the Otay Mesa System are those that will be required to serve individual developments and will
therefore be built by developers.
■ Water Supply: The District is currently planning to potentially receive desalinated ocean water
from a plant to be constructed in Rosarito, Mexico. A 54‐inch pipeline would accept flow from this
project, convey it to disinfection facilities, and transmit it to storage for distribution to the Otay
Mesa and Central Systems. The water is projected to be provided at a hydraulic gradient within
the 624 zone working pressure. (P2451)
■ Operations: It is recommended that the District demolish the existing Otay River Trestle pipeline
previously abandoned but remaining in place due to it also carrying a high pressure gas line
serving the 870‐1 pump station. SDG&E is providing alternative service from the south to replace
this gas line in 2016. (P2460)
■ Capital Facility: Currently the District moves water from the 571 reservoir to the 870 reservoir
using a low‐head, high‐head series pumping configuration. This combination is operationally
difficult and inefficient. The 571‐1 and 870‐1 pump stations will be replaced by the 870‐2 pump
station which will lift flow all the way from the 571 reservoir to the 870 reservoirs. (P2083)
■ Storage: Should the OMCDSP not be implemented it is recommended that the District build a new
870‐2 storage reservoir near the existing 870 reservoir site. This reservoir is currently
Chapter 5 Potable Water System Evaluation
5.6 Recommended Potable Water System Improvements
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 5-37
March 2016
recommended as 7 MG capacity. The reservoir should also be accompanied by a short 30‐inch
manifold pipeline connecting the two 870 reservoirs. (P2228, P2374))
■ Water Supply: The District has identified the Otay Mesa Lot 7 as a potential location for
groundwater extraction and treatment which may be developed as a new local water supply.
(P2482)
■ Capital Facility: The District will construct a 24‐inch pipeline replacement to the Donovan Prison
facility in east Otay Mesa, west of Alta Road. (P2589)
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-1
March 2016
Chapter 6
RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM EVALUATION
6.1 Overview/Summary
The State of California periodically experiences water supply crises due to multi‐year droughts.
Uncertainties that affect California’s water resources, which in turn impact supplies to Southern California,
receive widespread media coverage and public attention, particularly as droughts begin to span multiple
years, impacting water supply availability with shrinking allocations. In terms of local water supply
opportunities, the District continues to expand its recycled water system, primarily in the central service
area as major land development in the Otay Ranch area has continued. Because of the availability of land
and planned growth, the District’s recycled water system is one of the largest in San Diego County.
The District’s existing recycled water system provides the District with a local and reliable supply of
irrigation water for the central service area. This chapter provides a description of the District’s existing
recycled water supply and distribution system and addresses potential areas of expansion and non‐
expansion. A hydraulic analysis of the existing and proposed recycled water transmission and distribution
systems is also presented that identifies existing system deficiencies and recommends critical expansion
projects.
6.2 Recycled Water Supply
The District has two sources of recycled water supply: recycled water produced locally at the District’s
RWCWRF and a recycled water supply produced at the City of San Diego’s SBWRP. These facilities are
shown on the recycled water vicinity map included in Figure 6‐1.
6.2.1 Local Supply
The District owns and operates the RWCWRF, formerly known as the Jamacha Basin Water Reclamation
Facility. The RWCWRF is located near the intersection of Campo Road/Highway 94 and Singer Lane within
the Middle Sweetwater River basin. The RWCWRF was originally constructed in 1979 and upgraded in
1990 and in again in 2013. It has a rated design capacity of 1.3 MGD.
Wastewater collection services within the Middle Sweetwater River basin, known as the Jamacha Basin,
are provided by the District and the County. Current wastewater collection system flows for both agencies
totaling approximately 1.55 MGD average dry weather flow (ADWF). In 2010, wastewater flows were
25 percent higher totaling approximately 1.95 MGD, but have decreased due to water conservation and
other economic factors the past few years. Currently, approximately 1.03 MGD is collected from District
customers and 0.51 MGD is collected from County customers. The RWCWRF is a scalping treatment
facility: wastewater that is not treated by the facility, for beneficial reuse, continues to flow to the
County’s Spring Valley Interceptor and to the Metro wastewater system.
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.2 Recycled Water Supply
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-2
March 2016
Figure 6-1 Recycled Water Vicinity Map
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.2 Recycled Water Supply
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-3
March 2016
The District typically maximizes recycled water production from the RWCWRF and over the past several
years can consistently supply up to 1.0 MGD of recycled water supply delivered to the District’s Use Area
recycled storage ponds. Because of the continued reduction of District sewer flows, and limited potential
for growth in the basin, a reliable recycled water supply of 1.0 MGD is assumed from the RWCWRF.
In May 2013, the District completed a Wastewater Management Plan for the RWCWRF and the District’s
Jamacha Basin to evaluate opportunities and constraints to expanding the facility. The District has also
contemplated decommissioning the facility and sending all basin sewer flows to Metro and taking all its
recycled water from the SBWRP. Key findings of the management plan included:
■ The total ultimate projected sewage generation within Jamacha Basin that could be potentially
treated at the RWCWRF, if it were to be expanded, has been estimated at 2.96 MGD (note this
2010 estimate likely would be about 20 percent lower if updated based on current generation
rates).
■ It does not appear cost effective for the District to expand the facility beyond the current 1.3 MGD
and deliver increased recycled water supply.
■ Decommissioning the RWCWRF and relying on Metro or even a new joint reclamation plant with
the County is significantly more costly.
■ If Chula Vista developed a new water reclamation plant, the District could evaluate purchasing
recycled water from a new plant verses the take or pay arrangement at SBWRP.
Since the Wastewater Management Plan was completed in 2013, cultural resources have been found at
the RWCWRF which could hinder the District’s ability to expand the RWCWRF in the future.
6.2.2 South Bay Water Reclamation Plant Supply
Metro owns and operates a recycled water treatment plant known as the South Bay Water Reclamation
Plant (SBWRP). The SBWRP has a rated capacity of 15 MGD and is located at Monument and Dairy Mart
Roads near the international border, adjacent to the Tijuana River. The SBWRP receives wastewater flow
from a pump station known as the Grove Avenue pump station that scalps flow from the existing Metro
interceptor system that conveys flow northward to the Point Loma Treatment Plant for treatment and
ocean outfall disposal. The SBWRP currently operates as a scalping plant depending upon recycled water
demands, wastewater interceptor capacity limitations, and plant operations. It has been reported by the
District, during peak summer irrigation demands, there are several consecutive days where the SBWRP
cannot meet peak day demands due to plant operations and available wastewater flow. The District must
drawdown recycled water storage ponds in the Use Area to supplement the system.
The agreement between the District and the City of San Diego for purchase of recycled water from the
SBWRP was finalized on October 20, 2003. In accordance with the agreement, the City of San Diego will
provide an annual amount of up to 6 MGD of recycled water to the District. The term of the agreement is
20 years from January 1, 2007. The City has agreed to meet all applicable federal, state and local health
and water quality requirements for recycled water produced at the SBWRP to the point of delivery. The
recycled water total dissolved solids (TDS) are not to exceed 1,000 MG/l. From the point of delivery,
District is responsible for all distribution facilities that it owns and operates and for the quality of the
recycled water from that point.
The District should review the obligations of the City of San Diego to provide up to 6 MGD, especially
during peak summer demands, and advise the City of San Diego of the requirement to deliver the
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.2 Recycled Water Supply
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-4
March 2016
agreement flows. It may be necessary for the City of San Diego to accelerate sewer capacity improvement
to increase the availability of sewer flows at the SBWRP.
The point of delivery is located at the SBWRP. As part of the agreement, the District has funded and
constructed a 30‐inch transmission main to deliver the recycled water from the point of delivery to the
District, which is the 450 reservoir site. The City of San Diego has retained 1 MGD of capacity in this
transmission pipeline for potential reuse in the South San Diego area.
A Master Reclamation Permit (Order R9‐2007‐0038) allows the District to distribute the blended recycled
water supply from the RWCWRF and the SBWRP, but also restricts the areas where recycled water can be
used within the District based on the local surface and groundwater beneficial uses and water quality
objectives of the hydrologic areas that overlay the District’s boundaries. These hydrologic areas are shown
in Figure 6‐2.
The current permit allows recycled water use at sites located in the following Hydrographic Areas (HA)
and Hydrographic Subareas (HSA): Telegraph HSA, La Nacion/Sweetwater River HSA, the Salt Creek
portion of Otay Valley HA, and Tijuana Valley HA. Recycled water is not permitted in the Sweetwater
Reservoir drainage basin, where the RWCWF is located, due to the reservoir serving as a drinking water
source for the Sweetwater authority.
In November 2015, the City of San Diego modified the wholesale pricing structure for retail agencies
supplied by the City of San Diego, based on a City‐wide cost of service study. The adopted rate structure
for wholesale recycled water pricing, is based on a “postage stamp” methodology which treats the entire
City of San Diego recycled water system as one system, even though two water reclamation plants serve
two geographically separated service areas. The north San Diego recycled water retail agencies benefit
from a lower wholesale cost under the blended rate structure and the south San Diego agencies are hit
with higher recycled water costs.
The full impact on the cost benefit of expanding the recycled water system in the District is not yet fully
known, however, it is anticipated to have some effect of the future growth of the recycled water system.
Already, the District has taken the following actions:
■ Increased retail recycled water costs to the District customers to compensate for the City of San
Diego’s rate hike.
■ Eliminated future recycled water service to the Otay Mesa area of the District based on an
unfavorable cost benefit analysis to expand the central service area to the south.
The District may also see some reduction in annual recycled water based on the increased cost of recycled
water and possible cutback from the users.
6.2.3 Summary of Existing Recycled Water Supply
The maximum available recycled water supply to the District is approximately 7.0 MGD, based on the
reliable recycled water supply from the RWCRWF (1.0 MGD) and the City of San Diego SBWRP agreement
capacity (6.0 MGD). However, based on reduced sewer flows and the City of San Diego operational issues
at SBWRP, the total recycled water supply is closer to a range of 6.3 to 6.5 MGD. During a peak day demand
the District must rely on this supply to meet a 24‐hour recycled water demand, if not the District must
drawdown the storage ponds and/or supplement with potable make‐up water.
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.3 Existing System Overview
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-6
March 2016
6.3 Existing System Overview
The District operates and maintains over 93 miles of recycled water transmission and distribution
pipelines, pump stations and reservoirs, making it one of the largest recycled water systems in San Diego
County. The District’s mandatory reuse ordinance, land development conditions, and public outreach has
resulted in a stakeholder acceptance of recycled water as a viable local water supply for irrigation,
especially during these recent drought conditions. The District continues to successfully serve recycled
water to customers within its central service area, south of the Sweetwater Reservoir and west of the
Otay Lakes Reservoirs. The majority of the area represents the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
area within the City of Chula Vista.
The District’s recycled water system is unique with a south and north supply, covering a major topography
change. A plan view map and a hydraulic profile of the existing recycled water system is provided in
Exhibits VII and VIII, respectively.
6.3.1 Existing Distribution System
To serve the District’s recycled water customers, recycled water supply is provided by both the RWCWRF
and the SBWRP. Title 22 effluent from the RWCWRF is pumped 3.4 miles to the District’s Use Area to two,
lined and covered reservoirs, the 12‐MG 944‐1 (Pond No. 1) and the 16.3‐MG 927‐1 (Pond No. 4). Because
these storage facilities are lined and covered, there are no odor control or vector control issues associated
with these facilities, nor is there any percolation of recycled water from these facilities into the
groundwater basin.
A 14‐inch diameter force main, originating from the RWCWRF, connects to a junction box at a high point,
nearly 3 miles to the south and then gravity flows to the Districts storage ponds/reservoirs in the Use
Area. This 3.4 mile length provides the Title 22 requirement of 450 milligram‐minutes per liter of chlorine
contact time before the recycled water can be used.
The 927‐1 and 944‐1 reservoirs have high water elevations of 927 and 944 respectively, and provide
operational and emergency storage for the District’s recycled water system.
The reservoirs are hydraulically connected via a PRV whereby the distribution system will “float” off of
the 927 zone, when the 944 PS is off. Because of these elevation differences, the zone can operate at two
different hydraulic elevations, as follows:
■ “944 Zone” pump station is on
■ “927 Zone” pump station is off
Accordingly, existing customers may experience pressure swings of 10‐20 psi depending on the pump
station status.
A 20‐inch recycled transmission main (944/927 zone) extends south from the two reservoirs
approximately 13,000 feet to Otay Lakes Road. Additional 944/927 zone transmission mains exist in Otay
Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, Eastlake Parkway, Hunte Parkway, East H Street and Olympic
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.4 Future System Overview
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-7
March 2016
Parkway to supply the system during peak demand or supply the reservoirs during tank filling
operations.
The majority of the recycled water supply to the existing system originates in the south at the SBWRP. A
30‐inch transmission main (450 zone) extends from the City’s SBWRP and recycled water pump station to
the 12 MG, 450‐1 reservoir. This reservoir functions primarily as a regulating reservoir and forebay for the
680‐1 PS, which provides recycled water to the 680 and 944/927 zones within the central area. The 680‐1
PS (firm capacity of 6,300 gpm) is located at the 450‐1 reservoir site and pumps recycled water via
16‐inch/20‐inch transmission mains, primarily within Olympic Parkway, to the 680‐1 reservoir. The
3.4 MG, 680‐1 reservoir was constructed beneath the basketball courts at Sunset View Park in Chula Vista.
The adjacent 944‐1R PS, with a firm capacity of 4,920 gpm conveys water from the 680 zone to the
944/927 zone, via a 16‐inch transmission main.
The District has made upgrades to the 944/927 zone due to areas of excessive operating pressures which
caused problems with service laterals and connections. In the northern part of the zone, two isolated
pressure reducing zones were created by constructing PRVs. A 780 zone was created just east of Hunte
Parkway and south of Otay Lakes Road, and a 680 zone to the north, just west of SR‐125 and north of
H Street.
In the south, because of lowering topography and areas of high service pressures, a new 815 zone was
created by constructing two PRVs near Eastlake Parkway and Olympic Parkway. This zone will be expanded
further south as areas of the Otay Ranch development villages proceed with construction.
6.4 Future System Overview
The District’s Central Area continues to grow as shown on development maps included in Chapter 1. The
District will continue to require developers to expand and connect to the District’s recycled water systems
to serve irrigation demands. The master planned developments typically require irrigation for parks,
schools, commercial and industrial areas and multi‐family common areas. Single‐family residential units
will not use recycled water due to regulatory restrictions. A large potential irrigation demand also exists
for streetscapes and landscaped manufactured slopes due to large scale grading operations. The
uncertainty of water supply in San Diego County and the recent drought conditions make recycled water
a viable and reliable supply to meet future growth needs primarily within Villages 1 through 11, and the
University site shown on Figure 1‐3.
As earlier noted, the District has recently determined that it appears no longer cost effective to expand
and convey recycled water from the central area, directly south to the Otay Mesa area served by the
District, to meet future development needs. As a result, developers within Otay Mesa area are no longer
required to construct a recycled water system based on a temporary moratorium and related Board Action
in September 2014. The City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan Update had assumed the availability
of recycled water supply for the District in its long range planning.
6.5 Recycled Water Demands
For many years it has been the District Board’s fundamental belief that by developing and utilizing
recycled water, the need for imported potable water within the District can be reduced. In Section 26 of
the District’s Code of Ordinances, the District states its policy that “reclaimed water shall be used within
the jurisdiction wherever its use is financially and technically feasible, and consistent with legal
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.5 Recycled Water Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-8
March 2016
requirements, preservation of public health, safety and welfare, and the environment.” The
implementation of this policy provides the District the opportunity to plan, fund, and construct facilities
to meet projected recycled water market demands. To date, the District has constructed and expanded
its recycled water customer base to over 1,000 existing customer sites. The recycled water purchase
agreement with the City of San Diego, has increased its available recycled water supply and should support
future expansion recycled water customers in the central area. Otay Mesa is now exempt due to financial
infeasibility and a temporary moratorium.
6.5.1 Existing Recycled Water Demands
The District’s largest customers and their respective average demand for 2013 are listed in Table 6‐1. In
2013, the District’s average annual recycled water demand was approximately 4,480 AFY (4.0 MGD).
Table 6-1 District’s Largest Recycled Water Customers
Recycled Water Customer
2013 Average Demand
AFY MGD
Eastlake Golf Course 355 0.32
Salt Creek Golf Course 262 0.23
US Olympic Training Center 143 0.13
Otay Ranch Mall 68 0.06
East Hills Academy 53 0.05
Otay Ranch High School 45 0.04
Mater Dei High School 36 0.03
Veterans Home of California 31 0.03
Montevalle Community Center 30 0.03
Rancho Del Rey Middle School 27 0.02
Chula Vista Community Park 27 0.02
AFY = acre feet per year; MGD = million gallons per day
The District’s largest users, except for Salt Creek Golf Course, typically are supplied during the irrigation
watering period established by the District (10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.). Salt Creek Golf Course has the
ability to take water over the day with onsite storage. As the District continues to be constrained by supply
form the SBWRP during peak demands, any opportunities to manage demand, such as extending the
water period may need to be explored to reduce peaking on the system.
Table 6‐2 includes a summary of the recycled demands by pressure zone. As shown in the table, the
680 and 944/927 zones, which cover most of the existing central service area, have the highest demands.
An estimated MDD is presented by zone, which is used to determine the required capacity for recycled
water supply and pumping requirements.
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.5 Recycled Water Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-9
March 2016
Table 6-2 Recycled Water Demands by Pressure Zone
Pressure Zone
2013 Existing Demands(1)
Average Day Demand
gpm MGD
450 17 0.02
680 861 1.24
750 110 0.16
780 73 0.10
815 460 0.66
944 1,267 1.82
Totals 2,788 4.0
gpm = gallons per minute; MGD = million gallons per day
(1) Existing demand input to hydraulic model
.
A summary of the District’s historic monthly recycled water demands are provided in Figure 6‐3. This data
is based on the District’s billing data for non‐potable irrigation meters from 2010 through 2013. As shown,
peak use of recycled water in the District occurs during the warm, dry season, from June through
September, and has increased over the past four years as the District has expanded its distribution system.
In 2010 through 2013, the District’s recycled water customers used over 1,000 million gallons annually.
Over 1,400 million gallons was used annually in 2013 and approximately 1,350 million gallons in 2012.
Based on an average demand of about 4.0 MGD in year 2013, the average maximum month demand was
approximately 6.8 MGD (205 MG over 30 days), resulting in a maximum month peaking factor of about
1.7. Based on a maximum month factor of 1.7 and recognizing that there may be a few days exceeding
this demand during a peak month, it appears reasonable to assume a 2.0 peaking factor for determining
the existing system maximum day demand.
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.5 Recycled Water Demands
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-10
March 2016
Figure 6‐3 Historic Seasonal Use of Recycled Water in Otay Water District
6.5.2 Future (2050) Recycled Water Demands
A 2050 recycled water demand forecast was developed in Section 3.5 based on similar methodology as
potable water demands and review of SANDAG population and dwelling unit forecasts in the central
service area. An increase in average annual demand of approximately 1.6 MGD is estimated in the central
area.
As part of the future recycled water system modeling the estimated future demand was allocated
primarily by Villages in the Otay Ranch community. The City of Chula Vista provided an updated land use
table for the area served by the District and the remaining development within Chula Vista. This table
served as a basis to develop a land use based recycled water demand estimate using the District’s recycled
water demand criteria.
Table 6‐3 provides a summary of the future required recycled water supply for each of the pressures
zones.
‐
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
Month
2013 2012 2011 2010
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.6 Existing Storage and Pumping Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-11
March 2016
Table 6-3 Future (2050) Required Recycled Water Supply(1)
Pressure Zone
2050 Supplies
Average Day Demand()
gpm MGD
450 18 0.02
680 1,425 1.96
750 116 0.17
780 77 0.11
815 930 1.34
944 1,559 2.24
Total 4,125 5.8
gpm = gallons per minute; MGD = million gallons per day
(1) Includes 5% non‐revenue water demand.
6.6 Existing Storage and Pumping Analysis
The recycled water system storage and pumping was assessed to determine if criteria was met under
existing demands. Recycled water storage criterion was evaluated at two‐thirds of a MDD based upon
current District criteria presented in Chapter 2. The maximum day peaking factor of 2.7 WAS Design
Guidelines Section 4.3, Table 4‐3‐3 is used to evaluate storage and pump capacity. The resulting storage
assessment is included in Table 6‐.
Based on a MDD of 8.0 MGD and total storage capacity in the system of 43.7 MG, there is over 37 MG in
excess storage capacity in the system. The 680‐1 reservoir is currently operated at approximately
50 percent of the total capacity due to low and high water level controls. This reduces operational storage
in the 680 zone by approximately 1.7 MG. The District may want to consider evaluating and revising the
current operational levels of the 680‐1 reservoir so that there is adequate storage in the 680 zone to serve
MDD. Based on current conditions, the District has adequate operational storage to meet existing MDD
within the pressure zones that they serve.
Table 6-4 Existing Recycled Water Storage Analysis
Pressure Zone Facility ID (Name)
Existing Average
Day Demand(1) Max/
Avg PF
Max Day Demand
(MDD = ADD x PF)
Capacity (MG)
Required
Operational Storage
per Design Criteria (0.67 x MDD) (MG)
Surplus/
(Deficit) (MG) gpm MGD gpm MGD
450 450‐1 18 0.02 2.7 48 0.07 12.0 0.05 12.0
680 680‐1(2) 904 1.30 2.7 2,441 3.51 3.4 (1.7)(4)2.34 (0.6)
944(3) 944‐1
927‐1 2,006 2.89 2.7 5,415 7.80 12.0
16.3 5.20 23.1
System Total 2,928 4.21 7,904 11.38 43.7 7.59 34.4
gpm = gallons per minute; MGD = million gallons per day; PF = Peak Flow; MG = million gallons; ADD = average day demand;
MDD = maximum day demand
(1) Includes 5% non‐revenue water demand.
(2) Based on current operational levels, the 680 reservoir may not be fully utilized. This analysis assumes full capacity of the
reservoir.
(3) Includes demands for the 750, 780, and 815 reduced zones.
(4) Only 50% available for operational storage based on 944 pump station settings.
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.7 Future 2050 Recycled Water System Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-12
March 2016
A recycled water pump station analysis was performed for the District’s facilities only (the SBWRP pump
station was not included as it is owned and operated by the City of San Diego) and the results are
summarized in Table 6‐. The District’s pump stations have adequate pumping capacity to meet existing
MDD within the pressure zones that they serve under 24‐hour operations. The 680 PS would be deficient
under a 16‐hour off peak pumping scenario.
Table 6-5 Existing Recycled Water Pump Station Analysis
Pump
Station
Pump
Unit
Rated Capacity Firm Capacity
Max Day
PF
Max Day Demand(2) Surplus / (Deficit)
gpm MGD gpm MGD
24-Hour
(gpm)
16-Hour
(gpm)
24-Hour
(gpm)
16-Hour
(gpm)
680(1)
1
2
3
4
5(3)
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
‐
3.02
3.02
3.02
3.02
‐
6,300 9.07 2.7 5,638 8,456 662 (2,156)
944
1
2
3
2,460
2,460
4,300
3.54
3.54
6.19
4,920 7.08
2.7 3,312 4,968 1,608 (48)
RWCWRF
1
2(3)
6
5
3
4
800
‐
700
800
700
700
1.15
‐
1.00
1.15
1.00
1.00
1,600(4) 2.30(4)
gpm = gallons per minute; MGD = million gallons per day
Note: Facilities as of January 2016
(1) 680 Pump Station Supplies Pressure Zones: 680, 750, 780, 815, and 944. Reverse flow to the City of San Diego limits this
station’s capacity during the summer months.
(2) RWCWRF Pump Station assumed to supply 700 gpm (1 MGD) to meet the MDD.
(3) Space provided for an additional pump if needed.
(4) RWCWRF Pump Station 1,600 gpm max flow rate controlled by disinfection contact time and surge tank design.
6.7 Future 2050 Recycled Water System Analysis
The future 2050 recycled water system was evaluated using the InfoWater hydraulic computer model.
The future recycled water system included the ultimate demands from Table 6‐3 (above) for supply,
pumping, and storage needs. Demands were primarily allocated by location of Villages in Otay Ranch, the
Central area allowance for streetscapes and slopes was proportional to the 680 and 815 zones where the
majority of the growth will occur. Proposed transmission mains, reservoirs, and proposed pump station
improvements were added to the existing system hydraulic model based on future developments and
previous ultimate system models.
Based on the hydraulic analysis at peak hour and tank filling, key findings and recommendations are noted
below and serve as a basis for the District’s CIP presented in Chapter 7. Exhibits VII and VIII presents the
existing and proposed recycled water system. The following summary of key findings and
recommendations are developed for the District’s CIP presented in Chapter 7:
■ The District will need to amend the recycled water purchase agreement with the City of San Diego
to increase supply from 6 MGD to 10 MGD and extend the term beyond December 2026.
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.7 Future 2050 Recycled Water System Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-13
March 2016
■ Transmission pipeline hydraulic constraints between 680 PS and 944 PS limits pumping capacities
at 680 PS and ability to fully meet maximum day demands and therefore several transmission
main improvements are recommended along Olympic Parkway and Santa Victoria. (R2080, R2082,
R2084, and R2085)
■ The City of San Diego has limitations during the peak summer months on delivering the full 6 MGD
of supply, requiring the District to supplement with recycled water supply with potable water. The
District should work with the City of San Diego to ensure recycled water supply obligations under
the terms of the agreement are met to facilitate the District’s ability meet take or pay
requirements.
■ Use of 680‐1 reservoir as forebay storage for the 944 PS limits its use as an operational storage
reservoir. The District may want to explore 944 PS settings to investigate increasing use of 680‐1
reservoir during maximum day demands.
■ Operational flexibility to run pump station electrical motors outside of SDG&E peak electrical rate
hours and run engine‐driven pumps during these hours.
■ The southern portion of Otay Ranch Villages should create several backbone pipeline loops to
maximize recycled water use. Updated CIP projects have been identified in Main Street, Otay
Valley Road, Hunte Parkway and through Village 8, 9, and 10. It is recommended that an 815/680
PRS be constructed near Main Street/Rock Mountain Road and Magdalena to interconnect the
two zones. This should allow for more flexibility in system phasing, provide reliability, and assist
in meeting peak demands. (R2028, R2037, R2038, R2042, R2043, R2047, R2132, R2133, R2134,
R2135)
■ Proposed bridges on Main Street and Otay Valley Road that will cross Wolf Canyon and SR 125
will not be constructed by the developers in this area, but the extension of the recycled water
lines in these structures will be the responsibility of the developers. The developer required
recycled water lines are projected at 6‐inch piping, with the District to upsize these lines to 8‐inch
for additional transmission capacity and flexibility in system pumping. Costs for the base 6‐inch
water lines on the SR 125 bridges (R2136 and R2137) are planned to be divided evenly between
the developers of Village 8 East and Village 9. For the recycled water line on the Wolf Canyon
bridge (R2126), the costs of the pre‐upsized piping is to be split between the developers of Village
3 North (75%) and Village 4 (25%) based upon the estimated portion of the project on their
respective properties.
■ 944‐1 PS controls limit reservoir operating levels and 680 zone effective storage. (R2131)
■ The 680 and the 944 PS need increases in capacity to meet 2050 demands. Options may include
replacing existing pumps with larger pumps or adding engine driven pumps. Based on Table 6‐, a
minimum of 1,000 gpm of capacity should be added to meet 24‐hour pumping. The District may
want to consider increasing upwards to 2,500 gpm per station to provide some added flexibility
in operation. The installation of engine driven pumps at the 680 and 944 pump stations would
allow for continuous pumping during the peak electrical rate hours of the day when the stations
do not currently run and may eliminate the need for additional storage and other pump upgrades
at both station locations. (R2129, R2130)
■ It may be desirable to operate the existing 944 PS without a stand by pump in the future to meet
demand and minimize pumping upgrades. The large Use Area storage may provide some flexibility
Chapter 6 Recycled Water System Evaluation
6.7 Future 2050 Recycled Water System Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 6-14
March 2016
to accomplish this under reservoir filling cycles. It is recommended that the District conduct tests
operating all three pumps and review the hydraulic performance and 680‐1 reservoir drawdown
to confirm functionality (R2110).
■ The 944 PS would benefit in reduced operating costs and increased pump capacity by reducing
the system operating head with the addition of another transmission water line between Otay
Lakes Road and Proctor Valley Road. (R2128)
■ It may be beneficial to study alternatives to optimize 944/927 pressure zone hydraulics (i.e.;
eliminate 944 PS on/off pressure zone swings) by dedicating the 944‐1 Reservoir (Pond 1) to the
RWCWRF, dedicating the 927‐1 Reservoir (Pond 4) to the 944 PS, and/or constructing a new 927‐
2 Reservoir in former Pond 2 location, immediately west of Pond 4. Energy could be saved by
pumping from the 680‐1 Reservoir to the 927‐1 Reservoir rather than the 944‐1 Reservoir. The
recycled water system can operate with sufficient pressures as a 927 zone.
Chapter 7 includes budgetary costs for these CIPs, however, it is recommended that detailed
preliminary engineering be conducted to thoroughly evaluate each possible option with goal to
optimize service at the lowest capital costs.
Chapter 7 includes the planned recycled water CIPs to correct the above constraints and system
limitations.
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-1
March 2016
Chapter 7
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
7.1 Overview/Summary
Over the past 15 years, the District has experienced wide fluctuations in growth and water demands due
to economic and drought conditions. The District’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) must be designed
to respond to these changing conditions, which may result in the need to accelerate water infrastructure
to meet increasing water demand or the flexibility to defer planned projects that may not be needed as
originally forecasted. The significant reduction in water use District‐wide associated with the recent
drought from water conservation and restrictions has also led to further reassessments and even deferral
of CIPs.
The 2015 WFMP presents an updated CIP for the District, but, unlike past water master plans, considers
the potential implications should the District implement large‐scale local water supply projects such as
the Rosarito Desalinated Water Conveyance project or San Diego’s Pure Water project at the Lower Otay
Reservoir. Either one of these projects has the potential to introduce a new water supply in the South
District and reduce the dependency on the SDCWA. The added reliability of local water supply results in a
reduced CIP, as several storage and pumping projects would no longer be needed.
In the face of a severe water drought, the District continues to improve and expand its recycled water
facilities to serve irrigation demands and conserve valuable potable water supplies. Nowhere in San Diego
County is this more pronounced than in eastern Chula Vista and the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan area of the District’s service area. Critical to expanding recycled water service in this area is increased
recycled water supply from the City’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). One notable change
in recycled water long‐range planning is the District determined that it is no longer cost effective to expand
the recycled water from the Central Service Area to Otay Mesa due to the high infrastructure costs relative
to the currently projected usage. As a result, the District has extended a temporary moratorium on
spending on all planned recycled water CIP’s that would serve the Otay Mesa service area.
As in prior water master plans, the WFMP considers three major timelines or phases for the potable water
CIP to ensure near‐term high priority projects are included within the next six year budgeting cycle, as
well as long‐term CIPs driven by the timing of future growth. All capacity based CIP’s are sized and based
on the estimated “medium” forecast of water demands presented in Chapter 3 (Figure 3‐3).
The 2015 WFMP presents a new category or sub phase of potable water CIPs to account for the possibility
that one or more local water supply projects are not implemented. Failure to implement the new water
supply projects would require the District to continue its investment in new water storage projects and
smaller‐scale local reliability projects, with neighboring agencies, in order to meet the District’s goals for
water supply reliability. The new sub phase of CIP projects includes familiar projects from prior master
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.1 Overview/Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-2
March 2016
plans that would meet long term expansion needs for the District, should the District decide not to pursue
the new supplies currently under consideration.
The proposed Potable Water CIP phases for the 2015 WFMP therefore include the following:
■ Phase I (Present‐2016). These include projects that are currently in design or under construction.
An example of such a project is the 870‐2 pump station replacement project under design. These
projects are noted but are not included in the Program EIR because environmental review has
been addressed in previous documents.
■ Phase II (2017‐2022). These CIPs typically represent the high priority projects necessary to
address a current water system deficiency and provide backbone infrastructure to support
development projects. These projects are budgeted over a six year revenue cycle for the District
and are included in the current water rate structure and capacity fee program. An example of
such a project is the 980‐3 reservoir expansion project necessary to increase storage in the
980 zone which is currently deficient.
■ Phase IIIA (2023‐2050). These CIPs represent projects that may not be urgent but are critical to
meeting future growth, and water system design criteria and the District has sufficient time to
implement the project. The horizon year for sizing infrastructure is SANDAG Series 13 population
for year 2050. These projects present a long‐term CIP that may be used by the District in
formulating a 10‐year revenue plan. An example of such a project is the 980‐2 pump station
expansion project necessary to increase pumping capacity based on forecasted water demand
increases. It is assumed under Phase IIIA that the District’s “baseline” assumption for water supply
includes either the Rosarito Desalinated Water Conveyance Project or San Diego’s Pure Water.
■ Phase IIIB (2023‐2050). Under Phase IIIB, the District’s “baseline” assumptions for water supply,
the Rosarito Desalinated Water Conveyance Project and San Diego’s Pure Water, are not
implemented and the District continues to rely on the SDCWA for water supply. These CIP projects
primarily represent system reliability projects necessary to meet SDCWA outages and District
system design criteria. An example of such a project is the 624‐4 reservoir in the Central Area.
For recycled water, the CIPs are divided into two major phases of implementation, before and after the
expiration in 2026 of the current recycled water supply contract with the City of San Diego from the
SBWRP. Phase II long term system improvements will be implemented after this supply is confirmed
beyond 2026. The proposed Recycled Water CIP phases for the 2015 WFMP therefore include the
following:
■ Phase I (Present‐2026). CIPs include projects that will be constructed or have been identified as
necessary within the next ten years. All of these projects, except for one, are developer
reimbursements to coincide with construction of the developments. These projects will be
budgeted into a six year revenue cycle for the District and included in the recycled water rate
structure and capacity fee program.
■ Phase IIA (2027‐2050). These CIPs represent priority projects necessary to address the
conveyance of recycled water during all hours of the day, regardless of peak electrical billing
periods, to the District’s primary storage in the 944 pressure zone. The addition of engine‐driven
pumps at the 680‐1 PS and 944‐1 PS are the primary projects under this phase.
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.2 Expansion, Betterment, Replacement, and Supply Offsets
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-3
March 2016
■ Phase IIB (2027‐2050). The projects in these CIPs are required to increase the movement of water
within the 680 and 944 pressure zones for meeting peak demands and reduction of hydraulic
headlosses. The new 680 pressure zone pipeline forms a new southern backbone to the recycled
water system through Villages 2 and 7. Portions of this pipeline will be built by developers and
reimbursed as constructed.
■ Phase IIC (2027‐2050). These CIPs consist primarily of additional backbone pipelines for serving
new areas of development and new customers beyond the current reach of the system. A majority
of the projects will be developer reimbursements located in the southern Central Area. Projects
on Otay Mesa that are subject to the temporary moratorium are included in this phase and could
be deleted in the future if the District decides to implement a permanent moratorium.
Phasing and timing for the recommended CIP projects may be accelerated or deferred as required to
account for changes in supply quantities or sources, development project schedules, availability of land
or right‐of‐way for construction, project funding limitations, environmental concerns or other
considerations.
7.2 Expansion, Betterment, Replacement, and
Supply Offsets
The 2015 WFMP proposed CIP for the District primarily focuses on capacity and expansion related projects
designed to meet the medium growth forecast presented in Chapter 3. The District plans to update its
current water capacity fee program by integrating the updated CIP expansion projects into an update cost
of service study.
Unique to the District, is a water supply offset fee, which was approved by the Board in 2010, to collect
revenues to fund local water supply projects. The proposed CIP includes an updated list of these water
supply projects. The offset fee will take on critical significance should the drought situation worsen
resulting in further restrictions to imported water supply and possible moratoriums on new water
connections. The offset fee becomes a vehicle to collect additional fees to fund local water supply
projects, and offset future water demands thereby allowing continued expansion and economic growth
in the South Bay region.
The CIP also includes District identified replacement projects that were considered in the 2015 WFMP
analysis. New replacement project will be added to the CIP as the District gains a better understanding of
the condition and reparability of existing assets. These projects are typically funded by user rates.
Developer expansion projects have historically been a major contributor to the District’s CIP in part due
to the extensive growth over the past 15 years in eastern Chula Vista. By coordinating with planned
development projects and working with local Developers, the District was able to have designed and
constructed many major water transmission and storage projects. This saved considerable capital costs,
in that most of the CIPs were constructed concurrently with major roadway projects.
Now that the District is approaching build‐out, and a large part of the backbone facilities are constructed,
the new CIPs will be reviewed to determine the nexus to remaining development projects and whether
projects should be included as a CIP, upsized by the District, or simply only Developer required.
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.3 Potable Water – Recommended CIP
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-4
March 2016
The cost estimates for upsizing of developer projects listed in Tables 7‐1 through 7‐5 below are not
intended to set reimbursement amounts. The District will reimburse developers for District directed
upsizing of developer projects based on developer provided actual construction cost data (e.g.; developer
bids with upsize bid as a bid alternative).
7.3 Potable Water – Recommended CIP
Summary of the key changes and findings for the potable water 2015 WFMP CIP:
■ Reduced average water demand at buildout from 61,000 AFY to 46,000 AFY
■ A new “Baseline” water supply scenario which reduces reliance on supplies from SDCWA and
storage projects
■ Revised pump station design capacities from 24‐hour maximum day to 16‐hour recovery period
■ Revised 980 zone operational storage reservoirs based on development projects
■ Revised circulation within Otay Ranch General Development Plan area and proposed Pipeline CIPs
■ New Village 14 development proposal within Proctor Valley and interconnection opportunities
The recommended potable water facility improvements are shown in Exhibits I through VI—one exhibit
for each of the District’s five water systems. The labeling on the exhibit utilizes the District’s naming
convention, with a P listed before the project identification number. The tables provided in this section
also list the CIP naming convention.
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.3 Potable Water – Recommended CIP
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-5
March 2016
Table 7-1 Potable Water Storage CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Capacity (MG)
Est. Cost
(1,000s)
Phase II (2017 - 2022)
P2040 Regulatory Res ‐ 1655‐1 Reservoir ‐ 0.5 MG 0.5 $3,400
Total Phase II 0.5 $3,400
Phase IIIA (2023 - Ultimate) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2142 Regulatory Res ‐ 1296‐4 Reservoir, Village 14 ‐ 2.0 MG
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 1 MG)
2 $2,000
P2037 Central Res ‐ 980‐3 Reservoir, Resort Parcel ‐ 4.0 MG
(previously 13 MG) (1) (Developer Reimbursable,
Upsize from 1 MG)
4 $6,000
P2228 Otay Mesa Res ‐ 870‐2 Reservoir ‐ 10.0 MG 10 $20,000
P2431 Central Res ‐ 980‐4 Reservoir ‐ 8.0 MG (2)8 $16,000
P2576 Central Res ‐ 980‐5 Reservoir, Village 14 ‐ 2.0 MG (3)
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 1 MG)
2 $2,785
P2584 La Presa Res ‐ 657‐1 and 657‐2 Reservoir Demolitions ‐2 $720
Total Phase IIIA 24.0 $47,505
Phase IIIB (2023 - Ultimate) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2233 La Presa Res ‐ 640‐3 Emergency Reservoir ‐ 10.0 MG 10 $20,000
P2235 Central Res ‐ 624‐4 Emergency Reservoir ‐ 30.0 MG 30 $52,500
Total Phase IIIB 40.0 $72,500
(1) Village 13 Resort Reservoir.
(2) This reservoir will replace Reservoir 980‐1 and provide increased zone emergency storage.
(3) New Village 14 Reservoir at 980 elevation co located with 1296‐2 PS
(4) See end of Section 7.2 for details related to “upsize” of developer projects.
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.3 Potable Water – Recommended CIP
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-6
March 2016
Table 7-2 Potable Water Pump Station CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Capacity (gpm)
Est. Cost
(1,000s)
Phase I (present - 2016)
P2083 Otay Mesa PS ‐ 870‐2 Pump Station Replacement and Expansion
‐ from 12,000 to 14,000 gpm 14,000 gpm $17,000
Phase II (2017 - 2022)
P2174 Regulatory PS ‐ 1090‐1 Pump Station Replacement and
Expansion ‐ from 280 to 400 gpm
400 gpm $2,500
P2393 La Presa PS ‐ Pointe Hydro Pump Station Improvements ‐‐ $600
P2579 Central PS ‐ Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station
Rehabilitation
‐‐ $140
Total Phase II 400 $3,240
Phase IIIA (2023 - Ultimate) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2002 Regulatory PS ‐ 1296 ‐2 Proctor Valley Pump Station ‐ 4,000 gpm
(Developer Reimbursable, upsize from 1,055 gpm)
4,000 $3,500
P2202 Regulatory PS ‐ 1296‐1 Pump Station Expansion ‐ from 2,900 to
6,000 gpm
6,000 $3,100
P2248 Regulatory PS ‐ 944‐1 Pump Station Expansion ‐ 3,000 to 6,000
gpm
6,000 $3,000
P2379 Regulatory PS ‐ 832‐1 Pump Station Expansion ‐ from 4,200 to
6,800 gpm
6,800 $3,000
P2256 Hillsdale PS ‐ 978‐2 Pump Station ‐ 1,500 gpm 1,500 $3,500
P2577 Central PS ‐ 980‐2 Pump Station Expansion ‐ from 12,000 to
16,000 gpm
16,000 $4,000
P2578 Central PS ‐ 711‐2 (PS 711‐1 replacement) ‐ from 10,000 to
16,000 gpm (1)
16,000 $10,000
P2585 La Presa PS ‐ 1200‐2 Pump Station ‐ 1,000 gpm (Developer
Built)
1,000 $100
Total Phase IIIA 57,300 $30,200
Phase IIIB (2023 - Ultimate) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2391 SWA to La
Presa
PS ‐ Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm 10,000 $15,000
P2392 Central PS ‐Lower Otay Pump Station Replacement and
Expansion ‐ from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm (2)
18,000 $16,000
Total Phase IIIB 28,000 $31,000
(1) Includes new suction manifold to new pump station.
(2) Depending on new supply (Desalinated Water or San Diego Pure Water) a new pump station is required to convey water
from either City of San Diego WTP or from Rosarito Desalinated Water Conveyance Project.
(3) See end of Section 7.2 for details related to “upsize” of developer projects.
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.3 Potable Water – Recommended CIP
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-7
March 2016
Table 7-3 Potable Water Pipeline CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Length (ft)
Est. Cost
(1,000s)
Phase I (present - 2017)
P2573 Hillsdale PL ‐ 12‐Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 Zone, Hillsdale Road 4,100 ft $1,750
Phase II (2017 - 2022)
P2451 Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System 22,000 $30,000
P2460 Otay Mesa I.D. 7 Trestle and Pipeline Demolition ‐‐ $600
P2400 Central PL ‐ 20‐Inch Pipeline Replacement, 711 Zone, Otay Lakes Road ‐ at
Santa Paula
3,800 $2,280
P2403 Central PL ‐ 16‐Inch, 624 Zone, Heritage Rd‐Santa Victoria/Energy Way
(Developer Reimbursable, No Upsize)
5,300 $0
P2405 Central PL ‐ 624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Main Street ‐‐ $650
P2553 Central PL – 16‐inch, 340 Zone, Heritage Road Bridge Replacement Utility
Relocation
2,700 $1,820
P2595 Central PL – 16‐inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N – Heritage Road, Main St/Energy
Way (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
1,200 $144
P2516 La Presa PL ‐ 12‐Inch, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road ‐ Osage/Elkelton 2,500 $900
P2574 Hillsdale PL ‐ 12‐Inch and 14‐inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 and 978 Zone,
Vista Grande, Pence Drive
6,900 $2,750
Total Phase II 44,400 $39,144
Phase IIIA (2023 - Ultimate) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2589 Otay Mesa PL ‐ 24‐inch, 870 Zone, Donovan Prison 600 $432
P2104 Central PL ‐ 12‐inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road ‐ Birch/Main St (Developer
Reimbursable, No Upsize)
1,800 $0
P2106 Central PL ‐ 12‐Inch, 711 Zone, Village 8 Loop (Developer Reimbursable,
Upsize from 8‐inch)
3,400 $408
P2107 Central PL ‐ 16‐Inch, 711 Zone, Village 8E, Rock Mtn Rd – Magdalena/SR 125
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
2,400 $288
P2116 Central PL ‐ 16‐Inch, 711 Zone, Hunte Parkway ‐ SR 125/EastLake Parkway
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
3,000 $360
P2122 Central PL ‐ 20‐inch, 711 zone, OTC to Hunte Parkway 5,500 $3,300
P2135 Central PL ‐ 20‐Inch, 980 Zone, Otay Lakes Road to Village 13 (Developer
Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
5,500 $1,320
P2137 Central PL ‐ 20‐Inch, 980 Zone, Village 13 to 980‐3 Reservoir Transmission
PL (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
3,500 $840
P2138 Central PL ‐ 20‐Inch, 980 Zone, 980‐3 Reservoir Transmission PL (Developer
Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
2,200 $528
P2150 Central PL ‐ 16‐inch, 458 Zone, East Palomar Street ‐ Medical Center/Raven 900 $432
P2374 Otay Mesa PL ‐ 30‐in, 870 Zone, 870‐2 Reservoir to 870‐1 Reservoir 400 $360
P2398 Central PL ‐ 20‐inch, 624 Zone, Paseo Ladera btwn Telegraph/Olympic
Upsizing
2,800 $1,680
P2402 Central PL ‐ 16‐Inch, 624 Zone, Village 8W‐ Otay Valley Rd, Main St/School
(Developer Reimbursable, No Upsize)
2,500 $0
P2404 Central PL ‐ 16‐Inch, 624 Zone, Village 4 – Main St, Wolf Canyon/Village 8W
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
3,600 $432
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.3 Potable Water – Recommended CIP
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-8
March 2016
Table 7-3 Potable Water Pipeline CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Length (ft)
Est. Cost
(1,000s)
P2430 Central PL ‐ 20‐inch, 980 Zone, Proctor Valley Road – Village 14 Phase 1
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
8,500 $2,040
P2435 Central PL ‐ 20‐in, 980 Zone, Proctor Valley Road – Village 14 Phase 2
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
6,500 $1,560
P2437 Central Dis 624‐4 Disinfection Facility ‐‐ $1,400
P2511 Central
to/from La
Presa
PS – Otay Interconnect (North District ‐ South District
Interconnection Pipeline & Pump Station)
31,000 $37,300
P2528 Central PL – 30‐inch, 624 Zone, Manifold between Res 624‐1 & 624‐2 8,000 $7,200
P2554 Central 624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue ‐‐ $1,120
P2580 Central PL ‐ 12‐inch, 980 Zone, Bob Pletcher Pkwy – SR 125 Crossing 1,000 $750
P2581 Central PL ‐ 16‐inch, 624 Zone, Santa Victoria Rd ‐ Olympic/Heritage
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
3,600 $432
P2582 Central PL ‐ 20‐inch, 711 Zone, Eastlake Pkwy ‐ Olympic/Birch, Upsizing 2,500 $1,500
P2583 Central PL ‐ 20‐inch, 624 Zone, Otay Mesa Interconnect 711 PRS Bypass 4,800 $2,880
P2590 Central PL ‐ 20‐inch, 624 Zone, Village 7 (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize
from 12‐inch)
6,400 $1,536
P2596 Central PL – 16‐inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N – Main St, Heritage Rd/Wolf
Canyon (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
3,200 $384
P2597 Central PL – 16‐inch, 624 Zone, Main St, Wolf Canyon Bridge (Upsize of
Developer Financed 12‐inch)
1,500 $780
P2598 Central PL ‐ 16‐Inch, 624 Zone, Village 8W – Main St, La Media/Village 4
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
1,000 $120
P2599 Central PL ‐ 16‐Inch, 624 Zone, Village 8W‐ Otay Valley Rd, School/Village 8E
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 8‐inch)
900 $216
P2600 Central PL ‐ 16‐Inch, 624 Zone, Village 8E (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize
from 12‐inch)
2,100 $252
P2602 Central PL ‐ 16‐Inch, 624 Zone, Otay Valley Rd, SR 125 Bridge (Upsize of
Developer Financed 12‐inch)
500 $300
P2603 Central PL ‐ 16‐inch, 711 Zone, Hunte Parkway, SR 125 Bridge (Upsize of
Developer Financed 12‐inch)
600 $360
P2033 Regulatory PL ‐ 16‐inch, 1296 Zone, Melody Road ‐ Campo/Presilla 6,400 $3,072
P2053 Regulatory PL ‐ 20‐Inch, 944 Zone, Campo Road ‐ 944‐1 Pump Station/944
Reservoirs
5,800 $3,480
P2056 Regulatory PL ‐ 12‐inch, 1296 Zone, Jamul Drive Replacement 3,000 $1,080
P2058 Regulatory PL ‐ 20‐inch, 1296 Zone, 1296 PS to Proctor Valley Road & Melody 8,000 $4,800
P2156 Regulatory PL ‐ 12‐Inch, 1485 Zone, Olive Vista Drive 2,500 $900
P2171 Regulatory PL ‐ 20‐inch, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road ‐ Pioneer/Melody 2,200 $1,320
P2181 Regulatory PL ‐ 20‐inch, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road ‐ Proctor Valley
PS/Echo Valley (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
10,500 $2,520
P2188 Regulatory PL ‐ 24‐Inch, 832 Zone, Campo Road ‐ Steele Canyon/944‐1 Pump
Station
3,400 $2,448
P2190 Regulatory PL ‐ 12‐Inch, 1485 Zone, Jamul Highlands (Developer Reimbursable,
Upsize from 10‐inch)
2,300 $138
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.3 Potable Water – Recommended CIP
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-9
March 2016
Table 7-3 Potable Water Pipeline CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Length (ft)
Est. Cost
(1,000s)
P2197 Regulatory PL ‐ 24‐Inch, 832 Zone, 832‐1 Pump Station to 832 Reservoirs 1,800 $1,296
P2198 Regulatory PL ‐ 24‐Inch, 832 Zone, 832 Reservoirs to Steele Canyon H.S. to
Stoney Oak Drive via Campo Rd
5,100 $3,672
P2203 Regulatory PL ‐ 20‐inch, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road – Echo Valley/Pioneer 5,000 $3,000
P2204 Regulatory PL ‐ 20‐inch, 1296 Zone, Pioneer Way ‐ Proctor Valley/1296
Reservoirs
3,100 $1,860
P2411 Regulatory PL ‐ 1296/944 PRS Upgrade 1296‐1 Pump Station Site ‐‐ $417
P2412 Regulatory PL ‐ 944/832 PRS Upgrade 944‐1 Pump Station Site ‐‐ $657
P2575 Regulatory 1485/1296 PRS ‐ Presilla Dr and Jamul Highlands Rd (Developer
Reimbursable)
‐‐ $400
P2586 Regulatory PL ‐ 24‐inch, 832 Zone, Campo Road ‐ Florence Terrace / Steele
Canyon
1,500 $1,080
P2587 Regulatory PL ‐ 16‐inch, 1296 Zone, Jefferson Road ‐ Campo/Lyons Valley 1,900 $912
P2588 Regulatory PL ‐ 12‐inch, 1296 Zone, Jamul Highlands Road to Presilla Drive
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 8‐inch)
1,100 $132
P2591 Regulatory PL ‐ 16‐inch, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley to 1296‐4 Reservoir
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
9,500 $1,140
P2148 La Presa PL ‐ 16‐inch, 850 Zone, Jamacha Boulevard ‐ Sweetwater
Springs/Trace
5,200 $2,496
P2407 La Presa Dictionary Hill Fireflow Capacity Pipeline Improvements ‐‐ $450
P2500 Hillsdale PL ‐ 16‐inch, 803 Zone, Padre Dam ‐ Otay Interconnection w/ PRS,
Dehesa Valley (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 12‐inch)
3,900 $868
P2517 Hillsdale Helix ‐ Otay Interconnection, Chase Avenue/Fuerte Drive 1,200 $400
Total Phase IIIA 203,600 $109,048
Phase IIIB (2023 - Ultimate) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2195 Regulatory PL ‐ 24‐inch, 640 Zone, Campo Road ‐ Regulatory Site/Millar Ranch 4,100 $2,952
P2196 Regulatory PL ‐ 24‐inch, 640 zone, Millar Ranch Road to 832‐1 Pump Station 2,200 $1,584
Total Phase IIIB 6,700 $4,536
(1) See end of Section 7.2 for details related to “upsize” of developer projects.
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.4 Recycled Water – Recommended CIP
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-10
March 2016
7.4 Recycled Water – Recommended CIP
Summary of the key changes and findings for the recycled water 2015 WFMP CIP:
■ Reduced average recycled water demand at buildout from 10,600 AFY to 6,500 AFY with the
temporary moratorium on Otay Mesa.
■ Increase efficiencies and capacities of the 680‐1 and 944‐1 pump stations by reducing hydraulic
constraints through adding backbone transmission mains in the 680 and 944 pressure zones;
■ Continuous pumping capabilities will be necessary at both the 680‐1 and 944‐1 pumping stations
to maximize receiving water supply from SBWRP;
■ Planning for additional storage capacity in the 680 zone to improve system operations; and
■ Revised circulation within Otay Ranch General Development Plan area and proposed Pipeline
CIPs.
The recommended recycled water facility improvements are shown in Exhibits VII through VIII. The
labeling on the exhibit utilizes the District’s naming convention, with an R listed before the recycled water
project identification number. Refer to Section 7‐1 for descriptions of the CIP phasing.
Table 7-4 Recycled Water CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Length (ft) Cost ($1,000s)
Phase I (Present - 2026)
R2125 Central RecPRS ‐ 927/680 PRS Improvements, Otay Lakes Road
(Automation/SCADA) ‐ $200
R2084 Central RecPL – 20‐in, 680 Zone, Village 2 ‐ Heritage/La Media (Developer
Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 2,000 $840
R2028 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 680 Zone, Heritage Road to Main Street (Developer
Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 6,300 $378
R2047 Central RecPL – 12‐in, 680 Zone, La Media Road ‐ Birch/Main St (Developer
Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 1,300 $234
R2127 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 815/680 Zones, Main Street – La Media/Magdalena ‐
815/680 PRS (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 1,700 $500
Total Phase I 11,300 $2,152
Phase IIA (2027 - Ultimate)
R2129 Central RecPS ‐ 680‐1 PS Upgrade, Engine‐Driven Pump Addition ‐ $1,800
R2130 Central RecPS ‐ 944‐1 PS Upgrade, Engine‐Driven Pump Addition ‐ $2,000
Total Phase IIA ‐ $3,800
Phase IIB (2027 - Ultimate)
R2080 Central RecPL – 24‐in, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway between
Brandywine/Santa Victoria 3,800 $2,736
R2082 Central RecPL – 24‐in, 680 Zone, Santa Victoria ‐ Olympic Parkway/Heritage
(Developer Reimbursable, Upgrade from 6‐in) 3,500 $1,890
R2083 Central RecPL – 20‐in, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway ‐ Heritage Road 110 $100
R2085 Central RecPL – 20‐in, 680 Zone, La Media – Santa Venetia/Olympic 2,500 $1,500
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.4 Recycled Water – Recommended CIP
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-11
March 2016
R2128 Central RecPL – 16‐in, 944 Zone, Hunte Pwy/Proctor Valley Road – North of
Otay Lakes Road 7,300 $3,504
Total Phase IIB 17,210 $9,730
Phase IIC (2027 - Ultimate)
R2037 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 680 Zone, Main Street/Otay Valley Road – Village 8W
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 4,400 $264
R2038 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 680 Zone, Village 3N – Main St, Heritage Rd/Wolf
Canyon (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 3,300 $198
R2042 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 815 Zone, Hunte Parkway ‐ SR‐125/Eastlake
(Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 2,700 $162
R2043 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 815 Zone, Rock Mountain Road – Olympian HS/SR
125 (Developer Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 1,000 $60
R2079 Central RecPL – 6‐in, 450 Zone, Otay Valley Rd, Entertainment, 680/450
PRS 3,000 $940
R2126 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 680 Zone, Main Street – Wolf Canyon Bridge (Upsize
from Developer Financed 6‐in) 1,500 $390
R2131 Central Res ‐ 680‐2 Storage Reservoir (2.0 MG) (at Sunset View Park) ‐ $4,000
R2132 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 680 Zone, Main Street – Village 4 (Developer
Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 3,600 $216
R2133 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 680 Zone, Otay Valley Road – Village 8E (Developer
Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 2,100 $126
R2134 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 680 Zone, Otay Valley Road – Village 9 (Developer
Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 4,000 $240
R2135 Central RecPL – 8‐in, 680 Zone, University/Village 10 (Developer
Reimbursable, Upsize from 6‐in) 4,200 $252
R2136 Central RecPL ‐ 8‐in, 680 Zone, Otay Valley Rd, SR 125 Bridge (Upsize from
Developer Financed 6‐in)
500 $150
R2137 Central RecPL ‐ 8‐in, 815 Zone, Hunte Parkway, SR 125 Bridge (Upsize from
Developer Financed 6‐in)
600 $180
R2058(2) Otay
Mesa
RecPL ‐ 16‐Inch, 860 Zone, Airway Road ‐ Otay Mesa/Alta 10,700 $2,500
R2077(2) Otay
Mesa
RecPL ‐ 24‐Inch, 860 Zone, Alta Road ‐ Alta Gate/Airway 9,300 $4,500
R2087(2) Otay
Mesa
RecPL ‐ 24‐Inch, 927 Zone, Wueste Road ‐ Olympic/Otay WTP 15,100 $7,000
Total Phase IIC 66,000 $21,178
(1) See end of Section 7.2 for details related to “upsize” of developer projects.
(2) Projects on Otay Mesa that are subject to the temporary moratorium are included in this phase and could be
deleted in the future if the District decides to implement a permanent moratorium.
Chapter 7 Recommended Capital Improvement Program
7.5 Water Supply Projects – Recommended CIP
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Page 7-12
March 2016
7.5 Water Supply Projects – Recommended CIP
Summary of the key changes and findings for the potable water 2015 WFMP CIP:
■ Reduced average potable water demand at buildout from 61,000 AFY to 46,000 AFY
■ Reduced average recycled water demand at buildout from 10,600 AFY to 6,500 AFY with the
temporary moratorium on Otay Mesa
■ A new “Baseline” water supply scenario which reduces reliance on supplies from SDCWA and
storage projects
Water supply projects are included to support future water supply assessment documents and potable
water requirements within the District. These projects include groundwater wells, desalination facilities
and reclamation plants. Refer to Section 7‐1 for descriptions of the CIP phasing.
Table 7-5 Water Supply Projects
Project No. System Project Description
Anticipated
Yield (AFY)
Est. Cost
(1,000s)
Phase II (2017 - 2022)
P2451(1) Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and
Disinfection System
22,000 to
56,000
$30,000
Total Phase II 22,000 to
56,000 $30,000
Phase IIIA (2023 - Ultimate) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
Total Phase IIIA
Phase IIIB (2023 - Ultimate) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2481 Regulatory Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well 1,000 $11,500
P2450 Central Otay River Groundwater Desalination Facility 4,500 $11,000
P2467 Central San Diego Formation Groundwater Feasibility Study
and Sustainability Plan
4,500 $1,800
R2089 North District North District Distribution Pipelines and
Conversions
800 $17,500
R2094 Central Potable Irrigation Converting to Recycled Water 100 to 200 $1,000
P2434 Central Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well Development 600 $10,000
P2482 Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well System 300 to 500 $8,000
R2093 Central City of Chula Vista MBR Reclamation Plant 2,240 to 6,720 $11,000
Total Phase IIIB $71,800
(1) Also included in Table 7‐3
Appendix Contents
A. Hydraulic Model Calibration
B. Water and Recycled Water Demand
History and Forecasting
C. Population, Employment and
Development Forecasting
D. Water System Information and Future Static
Hydraulic Analyses
This page is intentionally left blank
APPENDIX A
Hydraulic Model Calibration
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A – Part 1
Potable Water Calibration Graphs
This page is intentionally left blank
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
458 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_2 SCADA_1 Model
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
485 Reservoir ‐July
SCADA_1 Model
0
5
10
15
20
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
520 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_3B1 SCADA_2 SCADA_3B2 MODEL
0
5
10
15
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
570 Reservoir ‐July
SCADA_1 MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
624 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 SCADA_2 SCADA_3B1 SCADA_3B2
MODEL_1 MODEL_2 MODEL_3
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
640 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 SCADA_2 MODEL_2 MODEL_1
0
5
10
15
20
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
657 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 SCADA_2 MODEL_1 MODEL_2
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Pu
m
p
St
a
t
i
o
n
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
711‐1 Pump Station Model Results vs. SCADA
711‐1 PS SCADA
711‐1 PS Model Results
Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 122436486072
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Le
v
e
l
,
Ft
Time
711 Reservoirs Model Results vs SCADA
711‐1 Reservoir SCADA 711‐2 Reservoir SCADA
711‐1 Reservoir Model Results 711‐2 Reservoir Model Results
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
803 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
803 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_2 SCADA_4 MODEL_2 MODEL_4
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
832 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
832 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 MODEL_1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
850 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
850 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 SCADA_2 SCADA_3 SCADA_4
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
870 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
870‐1 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 MODEL
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
944 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
944 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 SCADA_2 MODEL_1 MODEL_2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
978 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
978 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 SCADA_2 MODEL_1 MODEL_2
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
980 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
980 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 SCADA_2 MODEL_1 MODEL_2
0
500
1000
1500
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
1004 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
1004‐2 Reservoir ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
1050 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
1090‐2 Reservoir ‐July
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
1200 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
1200‐2 Reservoir ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
1296 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
1296 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 SCADA_2 SCADA_3 MODEL_1 MODEL_2 MODEL_3
0
500
1000
1500
0 4 8 12162024283236404448525660646872
Fl
o
w
,
gp
m
1485 PS ‐July
SCADA MODEL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 122436486072
Le
v
e
l
,
ft
1485 Reservoirs ‐July
SCADA_1 SCADA_2 MODEL_1 MODEL_2
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A – Part 2
Recycled Water Calibration Data
This page is intentionally left blank
Average
Suction
Pressure
(psi)
Average
Discharge
Pressure
(psi)
Average
Flow -
Pump 1
(gpm)
Average
Flow -
Pump 2
(gpm)
Average
Flow -
Pump 3
(gpm)
Average
Flow -
Pump 4
(gpm)
Average
Flow -
Pump 5
(gpm)
12 AM 8.16 102.01 2,862 33 3,724 0 0
1 AM 8.02 104.85 3,237 0 3,699 0 0
2 AM 7.72 108.76 3,627 0 3,682 0 0
3 AM 7.72 110.31 3,773 0 3,698 0 0
4 AM 7.51 114.32 3,602 51 3,604 0 0
5 AM 7.50 119.29 3,925 17 3,276 0 0
6 AM 7.73 121.95 4,214 0 2,683 0 0
7 AM 8.18 123.29 4,329 0 2,172 0 0
8 AM 8.55 123.97 4,271 0 2,135 0 0
9 AM 9.14 122.41 4,183 0 1,740 0 0
10 AM 9.52 125.74 3,957 0 2,123 0 0
11 AM 9.63 128.47 3,812 8 2,561 0 0
12 PM 9.78 127.68 3,305 21 2,440 0 0
1 PM 9.95 122.43 2,046 10 1,557 0 0
2 PM 9.99 122.89 2,086 4 1,571 0 0
3 PM 9.87 127.42 2,803 0 2,213 0 0
4 PM 9.92 127.24 3,130 0 2,108 0 0
5 PM 10.16 124.28 2,954 1 1,776 0 0
6 PM 10.29 122.28 2,179 29 1,556 0 0
7 PM 10.24 122.12 1,801 79 1,716 0 0
8 PM 9.79 117.82 1,773 261 2,816 0 0
9 PM 9.02 106.74 2,403 425 3,853 0 0
10 PM 8.55 106.21 2,924 165 4,171 0 0
11 PM 8.09 105.34 2,935 170 4,161 0 0
AVERAGE 8.96 118.24 3,172 53 2,710 0 0
T680 Calibration Data
July 15, 2013 - July 21, 2013
This page is intentionally left blank
APPENDIX B
Water and Recycled Water
Demand History and Forecasting
This page is intentionally left blank
B‐1
Otay Water District SDCWA Water Deliveries -- Total District -- 2007-2016
Calendar Years (AF) Calendar Years (MGD)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Jan 2,896 1,892 1,794 1,905 1,966 2,220 1,817 2,503 1,817 30.4 19.9 18.9 20.0 20.7 23.3 19.1 26.3 19.1
Feb 2,015 1,717 1,967 1,403 1,700 1,819 1,739 1,982 2,018 23.4 19.3 22.9 16.3 19.8 20.4 20.2 23.1 23.5
Mar 2,876 2,678 2,472 1,906 1,792 1,917 2,245 2,216 2,314 30.2 28.2 26.0 20.0 18.8 20.1 23.6 23.3 24.3
Apr 3,097 3,249 2,656 1,995 2,261 2,179 2,681 2,634 2,528 33.6 35.3 28.8 21.7 24.6 23.7 29.1 28.6 27.5
May 3,818 3,497 3,081 2,856 2,886 2,753 2,924 3,316 2,130 40.1 36.8 32.4 30.0 30.3 28.9 30.7 34.9 22.4
Jun 3,835 3,686 2,901 3,087 3,020 3,124 3,220 3,269 2,386 41.7 40.0 31.5 33.5 32.8 33.9 35.0 35.5 25.9
Jul 4,222 4,129 3,499 3,336 3,451 3,381 3,347 3,492 2,369 44.4 43.4 36.8 35.1 36.3 35.5 35.2 36.7 24.9
Aug 4,344 4,009 3,612 3,424 3,458 3,435 3,452 3,276 2,586 45.7 42.1 38.0 36.0 36.3 36.1 36.3 34.4 27.2
Sep 3,690 3,642 3,369 3,170 3,000 3,219 3,342 3,149 2,372 40.1 39.6 36.6 34.4 32.6 35.0 36.3 34.2 25.8
Oct 3,559 3,536 3,025 2,232 2,756 2,871 2,877 3,048 2,257 37.4 37.2 31.8 23.5 29.0 30.2 30.2 32.0 23.7
Nov 2,923 2,938 2,695 2,142 1,884 2,516 2,377 2,434 1,939 31.8 31.9 29.3 23.3 20.5 27.3 25.8 26.4 21.1
Dec 2,085 1,847 1,824 1,931 1,984 1,836 2,089 1,706 1,778 21.9 19.4 19.2 20.3 20.9 19.3 22.0 17.9 18.7
Year 39,359 36,821 32,895 29,387 30,158 31,268 32,110 33,027 26,494 35.1 32.8 29.4 26.2 26.9 27.8 28.7 29.5 23.7
Fiscal Year (AF)Fiscal Year (MGD)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Jul 4,222 4,129 3,499 3,336 3,451 3,381 3,347 3,492 2,369 44.4 43.4 36.8 35.1 36.3 35.5 35.2 36.7 24.9
Aug 4,344 4,009 3,612 3,424 3,458 3,435 3,452 3,276 2,586 45.7 42.1 38.0 36.0 36.3 36.1 36.3 34.4 27.2
Sep 3,690 3,642 3,369 3,170 3,000 3,219 3,342 3,149 2,372 40.1 39.6 36.6 34.4 32.6 35.0 36.3 34.2 25.8
Oct 3,559 3,536 3,025 2,232 2,756 2,871 2,877 3,048 2,257 37.4 37.2 31.8 23.5 29.0 30.2 30.2 32.0 23.7
Nov 2,923 2,938 2,695 2,142 1,884 2,516 2,377 2,434 1,939 31.8 31.9 29.3 23.3 20.5 27.3 25.8 26.4 21.1
Dec 2,085 1,847 1,824 1,931 1,984 1,836 2,089 1,706 1,778 21.9 19.4 19.2 20.3 20.9 19.3 22.0 17.9 18.7
Jan 1,892 1,794 1,905 1,966 2,220 1,817 2,503 1,817 1,604 19.9 18.9 20.0 20.7 23.3 19.1 26.3 19.1 16.9
Feb 1,717 1,967 1,403 1,700 1,819 1,739 1,982 2,018 1,784 19.3 22.9 16.3 19.8 20.4 20.2 23.1 23.5 20.0
Mar 2,678 2,472 1,906 1,792 1,917 2,245 2,216 2,314 1,880 28.2 26.0 20.0 18.8 20.1 23.6 23.3 24.3 19.8
Apr 3,249 2,656 1,995 2,261 2,179 2,681 2,634 2,528 2,149 35.3 28.8 21.7 24.6 23.7 29.1 28.6 27.5 23.3
May 3,497 3,081 2,856 2,886 2,753 2,924 3,316 2,130 2,243 36.8 32.4 30.0 30.3 28.9 30.7 34.9 22.4 23.6
Jun 3,686 2,901 3,087 3,020 3,124 3,220 3,269 2,386 2,541 40.0 31.5 33.5 32.8 33.9 35.0 35.5 25.9 27.6
Year 37,543 34,971 31,175 29,861 30,543 31,884 33,406 30,299 25,500 33.4 31.2 27.8 26.7 27.2 28.5 29.8 27.0 22.7
Page 1 of 1 Otay SDCWA DELIVERIES_Unaccounted_Peaking_2000-2016_111016a
Summary
B‐2
Otay Water District SDCWA Water Deliveries -- NORTH District -- 2007-2016
Calendar Years (AF)Calendar Years (MGD)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Jan 941 619 690 597 612 661 570 792 542 9.9 6.5 7.3 6.3 6.4 6.9 6.0 8.3 5.7
Feb 623 528 550 446 551 556 518 614 604 7.2 5.9 6.4 5.2 6.4 6.2 6.0 7.1 7.0
Mar 910 914 811 622 556 586 721 667 702 9.6 9.6 8.5 6.5 5.8 6.2 7.6 7.0 7.4
Apr 1,046 1,201 930 654 729 667 850 820 822 11.4 13.0 10.1 7.1 7.9 7.2 9.2 8.9 8.9
May 1,358 1,223 1,116 967 913 931 951 1,086 629 14.3 12.9 11.7 10.2 9.6 9.8 10.0 11.4 6.6
Jun 1,428 1,317 1,022 1,055 1,009 1,035 1,062 1,098 744 15.5 14.3 11.1 11.5 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.9 8.1
Jul 1,585 1,530 1,232 1,142 1,140 1,121 1,107 1,149 759 16.7 16.1 13.0 12.0 12.0 11.8 11.6 12.1 8.0
Aug 1,591 1,443 1,271 1,191 1,138 1,131 1,147 1,064 870 16.7 15.2 13.4 12.5 12.0 11.9 12.1 11.2 9.1
Sep 1,362 1,326 1,180 1,090 1,006 1,078 1,126 1,012 767 14.8 14.4 12.8 11.8 10.9 11.7 12.2 11.0 8.3
Oct 1,308 1,289 1,037 690 888 941 903 985 709 13.7 13.5 10.9 7.3 9.3 9.9 9.5 10.3 7.4
Nov 1,060 976 923 684 565 799 696 767 578 11.5 10.6 10.0 7.4 6.1 8.7 7.6 8.3 6.3
Dec 657 616 586 597 609 576 599 482 537 6.9 6.5 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.0 6.3 5.1 5.6
Year 13,867 12,981 11,347 9,734 9,715 10,082 10,252 10,534 8,262 12.4 11.6 10.1 8.7 8.7 9.0 9.2 9.4 7.4
Fiscal Year (AF)Fiscal Year (MGD)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Jul 1,585 1,530 1,232 1,142 1,140 1,121 1,107 1,149 759 16.7 16.1 13.0 12.0 12.0 11.8 11.6 12.1 8.0
Aug 1,591 1,443 1,271 1,191 1,138 1,131 1,147 1,064 870 16.7 15.2 13.4 12.5 12.0 11.9 12.1 11.2 9.1
Sep 1,362 1,326 1,180 1,090 1,006 1,078 1,126 1,012 767 14.8 14.4 12.8 11.8 10.9 11.7 12.2 11.0 8.3
Oct 1,308 1,289 1,037 690 888 941 903 985 709 13.7 13.5 10.9 7.3 9.3 9.9 9.5 10.3 7.4
Nov 1,060 976 923 684 565 799 696 767 578 11.5 10.6 10.0 7.4 6.1 8.7 7.6 8.3 6.3
Dec 657 616 586 597 609 576 599 482 537 6.9 6.5 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.0 6.3 5.1 5.6
Jan 619 690 597 612 661 570 792 542 443 6.5 7.3 6.3 6.4 6.9 6.0 8.3 5.7 4.7
Feb 528 550 446 551 556 518 614 604 526 5.9 6.4 5.2 6.4 6.2 6.0 7.1 7.0 5.9
Mar 914 811 622 556 586 721 667 702 575 9.6 8.5 6.5 5.8 6.2 7.6 7.0 7.4 6.0
Apr 1,201 930 654 729 667 850 820 822 667 13.0 10.1 7.1 7.9 7.2 9.2 8.9 8.9 7.2
May 1,223 1,116 967 913 931 951 1,086 629 658 12.9 11.7 10.2 9.6 9.8 10.0 11.4 6.6 6.9
Jun 1,317 1,022 1,055 1,009 1,035 1,062 1,098 744 810 14.3 11.1 11.5 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.9 8.1 8.8
Year 13,364 12,297 10,569 9,763 9,782 10,319 10,656 9,500 7,898 11.9 11.0 9.4 8.7 8.7 9.2 9.5 8.5 7.0
Page 1 of 1 Otay SDCWA DELIVERIES_Unaccounted_Peaking_2000-2016_111016a
North
B‐3
Otay Water District SDCWA Water Deliveries -- SOUTH District -- 2007-2016
Calendar Years (AF)Calendar Years (MGD)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Jan 1,955 1,273 1,104 1,308 1,354 1,559 1,247 1,711 1,275 20.6 13.4 11.6 13.7 14.2 16.4 13.1 18.0 13.4
Feb 1,392 1,189 1,416 957 1,149 1,262 1,222 1,368 1,414 16.2 13.4 16.5 11.1 13.4 14.2 14.2 15.9 16.5
Mar 1,966 1,764 1,662 1,284 1,236 1,331 1,523 1,549 1,612 20.7 18.5 17.5 13.5 13.0 14.0 16.0 16.3 16.9
Apr 2,051 2,049 1,726 1,341 1,532 1,512 1,831 1,815 1,706 22.3 22.3 18.7 14.6 16.6 16.4 19.9 19.7 18.5
May 2,460 2,274 1,965 1,889 1,973 1,822 1,973 2,231 1,501 25.9 23.9 20.7 19.9 20.7 19.2 20.7 23.4 15.8
Jun 2,407 2,369 1,879 2,032 2,011 2,089 2,158 2,172 1,643 26.1 25.7 20.4 22.1 21.8 22.7 23.4 23.6 17.8
Jul 2,638 2,599 2,267 2,194 2,312 2,260 2,240 2,343 1,609 27.7 27.3 23.8 23.1 24.3 23.8 23.5 24.6 16.9
Aug 2,753 2,567 2,340 2,233 2,319 2,304 2,305 2,213 1,715 28.9 27.0 24.6 23.5 24.4 24.2 24.2 23.3 18.0
Sep 2,328 2,317 2,189 2,081 1,994 2,141 2,215 2,137 1,606 25.3 25.2 23.8 22.6 21.7 23.3 24.1 23.2 17.4
Oct 2,251 2,247 1,989 1,542 1,868 1,930 1,974 2,063 1,549 23.7 23.6 20.9 16.2 19.6 20.3 20.8 21.7 16.3
Nov 1,863 1,962 1,772 1,458 1,319 1,717 1,681 1,667 1,361 20.2 21.3 19.2 15.8 14.3 18.7 18.3 18.1 14.8
Dec 1,428 1,231 1,239 1,335 1,375 1,260 1,491 1,225 1,240 15.0 12.9 13.0 14.0 14.5 13.2 15.7 12.9 13.0
Year 25,492 23,840 21,548 19,652 20,443 21,186 21,859 22,493 18,231 22.8 21.2 19.2 17.5 18.3 18.9 19.5 20.1 16.3
Fiscal Year (AF)Fiscal Year (MGD)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Jul 2,638 2,599 2,267 2,194 2,312 2,260 2,240 2,343 1,609 27.7 27.3 23.8 23.1 24.3 23.8 23.5 24.6 16.9
Aug 2,753 2,567 2,340 2,233 2,319 2,304 2,305 2,213 1,715 28.9 27.0 24.6 23.5 24.4 24.2 24.2 23.3 18.0
Sep 2,328 2,317 2,189 2,081 1,994 2,141 2,215 2,137 1,606 25.3 25.2 23.8 22.6 21.7 23.3 24.1 23.2 17.4
Oct 2,251 2,247 1,989 1,542 1,868 1,930 1,974 2,063 1,549 23.7 23.6 20.9 16.2 19.6 20.3 20.8 21.7 16.3
Nov 1,863 1,962 1,772 1,458 1,319 1,717 1,681 1,667 1,361 20.2 21.3 19.2 15.8 14.3 18.7 18.3 18.1 14.8
Dec 1,428 1,231 1,239 1,335 1,375 1,260 1,491 1,225 1,240 15.0 12.9 13.0 14.0 14.5 13.2 15.7 12.9 13.0
Jan 1,273 1,104 1,308 1,354 1,559 1,247 1,711 1,275 1,161 13.4 11.6 13.7 14.2 16.4 13.1 18.0 13.4 12.2
Feb 1,189 1,416 957 1,149 1,262 1,222 1,368 1,414 1,258 13.4 16.5 11.1 13.4 14.2 14.2 15.9 16.5 14.1
Mar 1,764 1,662 1,284 1,236 1,331 1,523 1,549 1,612 1,305 18.5 17.5 13.5 13.0 14.0 16.0 16.3 16.9 13.7
Apr 2,049 1,726 1,341 1,532 1,512 1,831 1,815 1,706 1,482 22.3 18.7 14.6 16.6 16.4 19.9 19.7 18.5 16.1
May 2,274 1,965 1,889 1,973 1,822 1,973 2,231 1,501 1,585 23.9 20.7 19.9 20.7 19.2 20.7 23.4 15.8 16.7
Jun 2,369 1,879 2,032 2,011 2,089 2,158 2,172 1,643 1,731 25.7 20.4 22.1 21.8 22.7 23.4 23.6 17.8 18.8
Year 24,179 22,674 20,607 20,098 20,761 21,565 22,750 20,799 17,602 21.5 20.2 18.4 17.9 18.5 19.3 20.3 18.6 15.7
Page 1 of 1 Otay SDCWA DELIVERIES_Unaccounted_Peaking_2000-2016_111016a
South
B‐4
Otay Water District -- Unacounted-For Water -- 2007-2014
Fiscal Year DELIVERIES (MGD) Fiscal Year SALES (MGD)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Jul 44.4 43.4 36.8 35.1 36.3 35.5 35.2 36.7 40.6 37.4 30.9 33.3 32.8 33.1 31.7
Aug 45.7 42.1 38.0 36.0 36.3 36.1 36.3 34.4 40.9 41.2 33.3 31.7 34.0 33.2 34.6
Sep 40.1 39.6 36.6 34.4 32.6 35.0 36.3 34.2 46.8 41.0 39.2 36.2 33.8 37.1 35.6
Oct 37.4 37.2 31.8 23.5 29.0 30.2 30.2 32.0 36.2 36.0 32.0 27.8 29.6 29.2 29.3
Nov 31.8 31.9 29.3 23.3 20.5 27.3 25.8 26.4 34.2 34.9 29.1 21.4 25.4 28.9 30.2
Dec 21.9 19.4 19.2 20.3 20.9 19.3 22.0 17.9 28.1 26.8 25.2 21.5 17.6 21.7 21.2
Jan 19.9 18.9 20.0 20.7 23.3 19.1 26.3 19.1 21.7 21.0 19.6 18.5 21.2 17.3 23.4
Feb 19.3 22.9 16.3 19.8 20.4 20.2 23.1 23.5 19.2 22.3 16.6 22.3 19.4 20.4 24.7
Mar 28.2 26.0 20.0 18.8 20.1 23.6 23.3 24.3 19.1 18.7 13.4 16.2 18.6 17.8 17.8
Apr 35.3 28.8 21.7 24.6 23.7 29.1 28.6 27.5 27.0 26.7 21.7 20.6 20.0 24.2 24.2
May 36.8 32.4 30.0 30.3 28.9 30.7 34.9 22.4 33.0 27.0 22.9 24.8 22.4 27.1 27.1
Jun 40.0 31.5 33.5 32.8 33.9 35.0 35.5 25.9 34.9 33.6 29.3 29.5 32.0 34.2 34.2
Year 33.4 31.2 27.8 26.7 27.2 28.5 29.8 27.0 31.8 30.6 26.1 25.3 25.6 27.0 27.7
UNACCOUNTED deliveries less sales) (MGD) UNACCOUNTED (as % of Deliveries)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Avg.
Jul 3.8 6.0 5.9 1.7 3.5 2.5 3.5 9% 14% 16% 5% 10% 7% 10% 10%
Aug 4.8 1.0 4.7 4.3 2.3 2.9 1.7 11% 2% 12% 12% 6% 8% 5% 8%
Sep (6.8) (1.4) (2.6) (1.7) (1.2) (2.1) 0.6 -17% -4% -7% -5% -4% -6% 2% -6%
Oct 1.2 1.2 (0.2) (4.4) (0.6) 1.0 0.9 3% 3% -1% -19% -2% 3% 3% -1%
Nov (2.5) (3.0) 0.2 1.8 (5.0) (1.6) (4.3) -8% -9% 1% 8% -24% -6% -17% -8%
Dec (6.2) (7.4) (6.0) (1.2) 3.2 (2.4) 0.7 -28% -38% -31% -6% 16% -12% 3% -14%
Jan (1.8) (2.1) 0.5 2.1 2.2 1.8 2.9 -9% -11% 2% 10% 9% 9% 11% 3%
Feb 0.0 0.6 (0.3) (2.5) 1.0 (0.1) (1.6) 0% 2% -2% -13% 5% -1% -7% -2%
Mar 9.1 7.2 6.7 2.6 1.5 5.8 5.5 32% 28% 33% 14% 8% 24% 23% 23%
Apr 8.3 2.1 0.0 4.0 3.7 4.9 4.4 24% 7% 0% 16% 16% 17% 15% 14%
May 3.8 5.4 7.2 5.5 6.5 3.6 7.8 10% 17% 24% 18% 22% 12% 22% 18%
Jun 5.1 (2.1) 4.2 3.3 2.0 0.7 1.3 13% -7% 13% 10% 6% 2% 4% 6%
Year 1.6 0.6 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.4 2.1 5% 2% 6% 5% 6% 5% 7% 5.1%
Fiscal Year DELIVERIES, 2-month trailing average (MGD) Fiscal Year SALES (MGD)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Jul 43.0 41.7 34.1 34.3 34.5 34.7 35.1 40.6 37.4 30.9 33.3 32.8 33.1 31.7
Aug 45.0 42.8 37.4 35.5 36.3 35.8 35.7 40.9 41.2 33.3 31.7 34.0 33.2 34.6
Sep 42.9 40.9 37.3 35.2 34.5 35.5 36.3 46.8 41.0 39.2 36.2 33.8 37.1 35.6
Oct 38.7 38.4 34.2 28.9 30.8 32.6 33.3 36.2 36.0 32.0 27.8 29.6 29.2 29.3
Nov 34.6 34.5 30.5 23.4 24.7 28.8 28.0 34.2 34.9 29.1 21.4 25.4 28.9 30.2
Dec 26.8 25.7 24.2 21.8 20.7 23.3 23.9 28.1 26.8 25.2 21.5 17.6 21.7 21.2
Jan 20.9 19.1 19.6 20.5 22.1 19.2 24.1 21.7 21.0 19.6 18.5 21.2 17.3 23.4
Feb 19.6 20.9 18.2 20.2 21.9 19.7 24.7 19.2 22.3 16.6 22.3 19.4 20.4 24.7
Mar 23.7 24.4 18.2 19.3 20.3 21.9 23.2 19.1 18.7 13.4 16.2 18.6 17.8 17.8
Apr 31.7 27.4 20.8 21.7 21.9 26.4 26.0 27.0 26.7 21.7 20.6 20.0 24.2 24.2
May 36.0 30.6 25.8 27.4 26.3 29.9 31.7 33.0 27.0 22.9 24.8 22.4 27.1 27.1
Jun 38.4 31.9 31.8 31.6 31.4 32.9 35.2 34.9 33.6 29.3 29.5 32.0 34.2 34.2
Year 33.4 31.5 27.6 26.6 27.1 28.3 29.7 31.8 30.6 26.1 25.3 25.6 27.0 27.7
UNACCOUNTED (2-mn. trailing avg. deliveries less sales) (MGD) UNACCOUNTED (as % of Deliveries)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Avg.
Jul 2.4 4.3 3.2 1.0 1.8 1.6 3.4 6% 10% 9% 3% 5% 5% 10% 7%
Aug 4.2 1.6 4.1 3.8 2.3 2.6 1.1 9% 4% 11% 11% 6% 7% 3% 7%
Sep (4.0) (0.1) (1.9) (1.0) 0.7 (1.6) 0.6 -9% 0% -5% -3% 2% -4% 2% -3%
Oct 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.1 1.2 3.4 4.0 7% 6% 6% 4% 4% 10% 12% 7%
Nov 0.4 (0.4) 1.4 1.9 (0.7) (0.1) (2.1) 1% -1% 5% 8% -3% 0% -8% 0%
Dec (1.3) (1.1) (1.0) 0.3 3.0 1.6 2.7 -5% -4% -4% 1% 15% 7% 11% 3%
Jan (0.8) (1.9) 0.0 2.0 0.9 1.9 0.7 -4% -10% 0% 10% 4% 10% 3% 2%
Feb 0.3 (1.5) 1.5 (2.1) 2.5 (0.7) 0.0 2% -7% 8% -10% 11% -4% 0% 0%
Mar 4.6 5.7 4.8 3.1 1.7 4.1 5.3 20% 23% 26% 16% 8% 19% 23% 19%
Apr 4.8 0.7 (0.8) 1.1 2.0 2.2 1.7 15% 2% -4% 5% 9% 8% 7% 6%
May 3.1 3.7 3.0 2.6 3.9 2.8 4.6 8% 12% 12% 10% 15% 9% 15% 11%
Jun 3.5 (1.7) 2.5 2.1 (0.5) (1.4) 0.9 9% -5% 8% 7% -2% -4% 3% 2%
Year 1.6 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.3 2.0 5% 3% 5% 5% 6% 5% 7% 5.0%
Page 1 of 1 Otay SDCWA DELIVERIES_Unaccounted_Peaking_2000-2016_111016a
Unaccounted
B‐5
Otay Water District Monthly Peaking Factors -- CY 2007-2013
Total District Deliveries (MGD) Total District Deliveries -- Monthly Peaking Factor
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Avg.
Jan 30.4 19.9 18.9 20.0 20.7 23.3 19.1 26.3 19.1 0.87 0.61 0.64 0.76 0.77 0.84 0.67 0.89 0.81 0.76
Feb 23.4 19.3 22.9 16.3 19.8 20.4 20.2 23.1 23.5 0.67 0.59 0.78 0.62 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.78 0.99 0.73
Mar 30.2 28.2 26.0 20.0 18.8 20.1 23.6 23.3 24.3 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.76 0.70 0.72 0.82 0.79 1.03 0.83
Apr 33.6 35.3 28.8 21.7 24.6 23.7 29.1 28.6 27.5 0.96 1.08 0.98 0.83 0.91 0.85 1.02 0.97 1.16 0.97
May 40.1 36.8 32.4 30.0 30.3 28.9 30.7 34.9 22.4 1.14 1.12 1.10 1.14 1.13 1.04 1.07 1.18 0.95 1.10
Jun 41.7 40.0 31.5 33.5 32.8 33.9 35.0 35.5 25.9 1.19 1.22 1.07 1.28 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.20 1.10 1.19
Jul 44.4 43.4 36.8 35.1 36.3 35.5 35.2 36.7 24.9 1.26 1.32 1.25 1.34 1.35 1.28 1.23 1.24 1.05 1.26
Aug 45.7 42.1 38.0 36.0 36.3 36.1 36.3 34.4 27.2 1.30 1.29 1.29 1.37 1.35 1.30 1.27 1.17 1.15 1.28
Sep 40.1 39.6 36.6 34.4 32.6 35.0 36.3 34.2 25.8 1.14 1.21 1.25 1.31 1.21 1.26 1.27 1.16 1.09 1.21
Oct 37.4 37.2 31.8 23.5 29.0 30.2 30.2 32.0 23.7 1.06 1.13 1.08 0.89 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.09 1.00 1.05
Nov 31.8 31.9 29.3 23.3 20.5 27.3 25.8 26.4 21.1 0.90 0.97 1.00 0.89 0.76 0.98 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.91
Dec 21.9 19.4 19.2 20.3 20.9 19.3 22.0 17.9 18.7 0.62 0.59 0.65 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.77 0.61 0.79 0.70
Year 35.1 32.8 29.4 26.2 26.9 27.8 28.7 29.5 23.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
NORTH District Deliveries (MGD) NORTH District Deliveries -- Monthly Peaking Factor
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Avg.
Jan 9.9 6.5 7.3 6.3 6.4 6.9 6.0 8.3 5.7 0.80 0.56 0.72 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.66 0.89 0.77 0.74
Feb 7.2 5.9 6.4 5.2 6.4 6.2 6.0 7.1 7.0 0.59 0.51 0.63 0.60 0.74 0.70 0.66 0.76 0.95 0.68
Mar 9.6 9.6 8.5 6.5 5.8 6.2 7.6 7.0 7.4 0.77 0.83 0.84 0.75 0.67 0.69 0.83 0.75 1.00 0.79
Apr 11.4 13.0 10.1 7.1 7.9 7.2 9.2 8.9 8.9 0.92 1.13 1.00 0.82 0.91 0.81 1.01 0.95 1.21 0.97
May 14.3 12.9 11.7 10.2 9.6 9.8 10.0 11.4 6.6 1.15 1.11 1.16 1.17 1.11 1.09 1.09 1.21 0.90 1.11
Jun 15.5 14.3 11.1 11.5 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.9 8.1 1.25 1.24 1.10 1.32 1.26 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.09 1.23
Jul 16.7 16.1 13.0 12.0 12.0 11.8 11.6 12.1 8.0 1.35 1.39 1.28 1.38 1.38 1.31 1.27 1.28 1.08 1.30
Aug 16.7 15.2 13.4 12.5 12.0 11.9 12.1 11.2 9.1 1.35 1.31 1.32 1.44 1.38 1.32 1.32 1.19 1.24 1.32
Sep 14.8 14.4 12.8 11.8 10.9 11.7 12.2 11.0 8.3 1.20 1.25 1.27 1.36 1.26 1.30 1.34 1.17 1.13 1.25
Oct 13.7 13.5 10.9 7.3 9.3 9.9 9.5 10.3 7.4 1.11 1.17 1.08 0.83 1.08 1.10 1.04 1.10 1.01 1.06
Nov 11.5 10.6 10.0 7.4 6.1 8.7 7.6 8.3 6.3 0.93 0.92 0.99 0.85 0.71 0.97 0.83 0.89 0.85 0.88
Dec 6.9 6.5 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.0 6.3 5.1 5.6 0.56 0.56 0.61 0.72 0.74 0.67 0.69 0.54 0.77 0.65
Year 12.4 11.6 10.1 8.7 8.7 9.0 9.2 9.4 7.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
- -
SOUTH District Deliveries (MGD) SOUTH District Deliveries -- Monthly Peaking Factor
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Avg.
Jan 20.6 13.4 11.6 13.7 14.2 16.4 13.1 18.0 13.4 0.90 0.63 0.60 0.78 0.78 0.87 0.67 0.90 0.82 0.75
Feb 16.2 13.4 16.5 11.1 13.4 14.2 14.2 15.9 16.5 0.71 0.63 0.86 0.64 0.73 0.75 0.73 0.79 1.01 0.72
Mar 20.7 18.5 17.5 13.5 13.0 14.0 16.0 16.3 16.9 0.91 0.87 0.91 0.77 0.71 0.74 0.82 0.81 1.04 0.82
Apr 22.3 22.3 18.7 14.6 16.6 16.4 19.9 19.7 18.5 0.98 1.05 0.97 0.83 0.91 0.87 1.02 0.98 1.14 0.95
May 25.9 23.9 20.7 19.9 20.7 19.2 20.7 23.4 15.8 1.14 1.13 1.07 1.13 1.14 1.02 1.06 1.17 0.97 1.10
Jun 26.1 25.7 20.4 22.1 21.8 22.7 23.4 23.6 17.8 1.15 1.21 1.06 1.26 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.17 1.10 1.18
Jul 27.7 27.3 23.8 23.1 24.3 23.8 23.5 24.6 16.9 1.22 1.29 1.24 1.31 1.33 1.26 1.21 1.23 1.04 1.27
Aug 28.9 27.0 24.6 23.5 24.4 24.2 24.2 23.3 18.0 1.27 1.27 1.28 1.34 1.34 1.28 1.24 1.16 1.11 1.29
Sep 25.3 25.2 23.8 22.6 21.7 23.3 24.1 23.2 17.4 1.11 1.19 1.24 1.29 1.19 1.23 1.23 1.16 1.07 1.21
Oct 23.7 23.6 20.9 16.2 19.6 20.3 20.8 21.7 16.3 1.04 1.11 1.09 0.92 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.08 1.00 1.05
Nov 20.2 21.3 19.2 15.8 14.3 18.7 18.3 18.1 14.8 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.79 0.99 0.94 0.90 0.91 0.93
Dec 15.0 12.9 13.0 14.0 14.5 13.2 15.7 12.9 13.0 0.66 0.61 0.68 0.80 0.79 0.70 0.80 0.64 0.80 0.72
Year 22.8 21.2 19.2 17.5 18.3 18.9 19.5 20.1 16.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Page 1 of 1
Otay SDCWA DELIVERIES_Unaccounted_Peaking_2000-2016_111016a
Peaking
B‐6
Otay Water District Projected Monthly Peaking Factors -- 2013-2050
BASELINE AND PROJECTED DELIVERIES ESTIMATED % OUTDOOR USE PROJECTED MONTHLY PEAKING FACTOR
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2013 2020 2035 2050 2013 2020 2035 2050
MGD MGD MGD MGD
NORTH DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES % Outdoor (Estimated) Scaled Monthly Peaking Factor
SFR 5.88 5.88 6.02 6.34 60% 55% 50% 45%
MFR 1.13 1.10 1.02 1.01 10% 10% 10% 10%
PC 0.86 1.11 1.20 1.31 20% 20% 15% 15%
IRR 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.10 100% 100% 100% 100%
TEMP 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 100% 100% 100% 100%
TOTAL 8.88 9.14 9.33 9.81 54% 51% 47% 44% 1.32 1.30 1.28 1.26
SOUTH DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES % Outdoor (Estimated) Monthly Peaking Factor
SFR 10.24 10.75 11.24 11.21 50% 50% 45% 40%
MFR 2.62 4.13 5.41 6.02 5% 5% 5% 5%
PC 3.62 5.28 6.28 9.15 20% 15% 15% 10%
IRR 2.69 2.95 3.36 4.05 100% 100% 100% 100%
TEMP 0.15 0.37 0.37 0.37 100% 100% 100% 100%
TOTAL 19.32 23.48 26.65 30.80 46% 41% 38% 33% 1.29 1.26 1.24 1.21
TOTAL DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES % Outdoor (Estimated) Monthly Peaking Factor
SFR 16.12 16.63 17.26 17.55 54% 52% 47% 42%
MFR 3.76 5.22 6.43 7.04 7% 6% 6% 6%
PC 4.48 6.39 7.48 10.46 20% 16% 15% 11%
IRR 3.67 3.95 4.40 5.15 100% 100% 100% 100%
TEMP 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.42 100% 100% 100% 100%
TOTAL 28.20 32.62 35.99 40.62 48% 44% 40% 35% 1.28 1.25 1.23 1.20
Notes:
1) Projected Deliveries are for the median forecast condition as defined in the Demand Forecast Model v. 01/12/15.
2) Outdoor use percentages by customer class for the North and South districts are user-adjustable estimates. Percentages for the District Totals
and for the Total District are calculated based on the user estimates, weighted by projected deliveries.
3) Monthly Peaking Factors for 2013 are from the 2007-2013 averages calculated in the Peaking worksheet. Projected future peaking factors are
calculated by scaling the peaking component (p.f. -1) of the 2013 factors downward proportionate to the decrease in % Outdoor Use.
Page 1 of 1 Otay SDCWA DELIVERIES_Unaccounted_Peaking_2000-2016_111016a
Peaking Trend
OWD Water Demand Forecast Tool
Hello -- Here are a few notes on what you have here:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
This spreadsheet calculates future potable water demand by Service Area (SA) and for the District as a whole, and allows
sensitivity analysis for alternative base year demand rates, growth rates, and future conservation levels.
Forecasts are based on the following:
1) Existing unit use per account type, by Service Area, per District sales records and the "OWD SALES Data Query Tool"
V1d 11/26/14. A key assumption of the default forecast settings is that CY 2013 water use represents Normal condition
use for the District, and therefore is a suitable basis determining unit use per account type. The base year selection is
user-adjustable.
2) Projected growth in population, housing, and employment, by PZ and SA, per SANDAG Series 13 Regional Growth
Forecast (draft 2014). The draft forecast data is for 2020, 2035, and 2050.
3) Estimated unit use adjustments over time, by causative factor, as selected by the user. The user-adjustable factors
account for various conservation programs, as well as pricing, climate, and the occurrence of growth in warmer inland
areas, and differentiate between factors affecting existing customers and those affecting new customers only. The default
assumptions, subject to revision by the user, assume additional reductions in unit use relative to the 2013 baseline
conditions.
ARCHITECTURE:
The Spreadsheet is structured into worksheets as follows. Additional Development Notes are included in the main
worksheets.
•Hello: Description, architecture, and general instructions.
•Unit Use Adjustments: Calculates unit use adjustments for various factors driving reductions and increases in unit water
use, and sums these by customer category and service area, for Existing and New customer categories.
•Scale Factors SA, PZ: Calculates growth factors for each account category by SA and PZ respectively, based on the
S13 growth forecasts and on user-adjustable growth rates and conservation factors.
•Forecast SA , PZ: Generates forecasts by SA and PZ, respectively, and for the District as a whole. Also calculates
resulting per capita use in GPCD. The additional precision of the PZ forecast leads to slightly different forecast totals than
for the SA forecast. The difference is less than 1 percent. The PZ version is the official forecast.
•Forecast Range / Chart: Using the PZ forecast tool, the Forecast Range worksheet allows What-If analysis of Low,
Median, and High forecasts, and graphs the results. The Chart is formatted to print the graph.
•Recycled: Forecasts recycled water use based on existing recycled water demands and projected growth of irrigation
demands in the Central service area. Assumes recycled water service is confined to the Central service area.
•SA5 and PZ Sum GPD, MGD: These are static worksheets, generated from the OWD SALES Data Query Tool,
summarizing annual unit use data for 2006 through 2013, for each of the five service areas and the various pressure
zones, by customer class. The GPD versions are for reference only and are not used in any of the forecast calculations.
•S13_PZ and S13_SA: These worksheets summarize the draft SANDAG Series 13 forecasts for the District. The PZ
version includes an optional adjustment (user selectable) to include the projected growth from the District's Area Of
Influence, as documented in the worksheet.
INSTRUCTIONS:
The pale green shaded cells designate user inputs. Use these, and the drop-down boxes, to adjust the forecast parameters.
Development Notes included with key calculation worksheets provide additional instruction and documentation.
VERSION NOTES:
V1 -- 09/08/14: Original version for distribution.
V2 -- 09/30/14: Added conservation factor detail
V3 -- 10/02/14: Added growth rate adjustment feature
V4 -- 12/02/14: Added PZ-level forecasting; added recycled water forecast
V4a -- 1/12/15: Expanded Forecast SA summary sheet to include separate listings for Sales and Deliveries
V4b -- 5/23/15: Updated to include CY 2014 deliveries as "historical", with forecast values now beginning 2015
Page 1 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Hello
Otay Water Demand Forecast Worksheet 0
Unit Use Factor Adjustments ‐‐ Individual Component Detail
2013 Approximate Use per account (gpd): High‐Efficiency Clothes Washers
La Presa SFR ‐‐ Total 280 SFR ΔPenetration by 2050 (vs. 2013):50%
" " SFR ‐‐ Outdoor 105 MFR ΔPenetration by 2050 (vs. 2013):25%
" "% Indoor 63% Usage change per (gpd):‐13
Hills., Reg. SFR ‐‐ Total 530 SFR 2050 change (gpd):‐7
" " SFR ‐‐ Outdoor 340 SFR 2050 change (scale factor): 0.982
" "% Indoor 36% MFR 2050 change (gpd):‐3
Central, OM SFR ‐‐ Total 360 MFR 2050 change (scale factor): 0.980
" " SFR ‐‐ Outdoor 145
" "% Indoor 60%
MFR ‐‐ Total 160
MFR ‐‐ Outdoor 10
SFR/MFR Indoor Per Cap. ‐‐ Typical 65
High‐Efficiency Toilets
Weather‐Based Irrigation Controllers Δ Penetration by 2050 (vs. 2013):25%
Δ Penetration by 2050 (change vs. 2013):50%New customer penetration:100%
Outdoor change per controller:‐6% Usage change per SFR/MFR (gpd):‐5
SFR 2050 change (gpd):‐4Exist. SFR/MFR 2050 change (scale factor): 0.997
SFR 2050 change (scale factor): 0.988 New SFR/MFR 2050 change (scale factor): 0.986
IRR 2050 change (%)‐3.0%
IRR 2050 change (scale factor) 0.970
Landscape Ordinance
Turf Retirement (Existing Customers)Outdoor change ‐ New SFR (%)‐25%
Δ Front yard retirements by 2050 (vs. 2013):40% Outdoor change ‐ New SFR (gpd)‐36
Outdoor useage change per:‐25% New SFR 2050 change (scale factor): 0.899
SFR 2050 reduction (gpd):‐15 New IRR 2050 change (%)‐25.0%
SFR 2050 reduction (scale factor): 0.960 New IRR 2050 change (scale factor) 0.750
IRR retrofits by 2050 20%
IRR Usage change per:‐20%
IRR 2050 reduction (scale factor): 0.960
Price Response / Additional Behavioral
Real price increase by 2050:50%
Warming Temperatures Residential Price‐Elasticity ‐0.20
ETo change by 2050:3.0% Expected Total 2050 response ‐10.0%
Irrigation change by 2050: 3.0% Estimated behavioral component 40%
SFR 2050 change (gpd): 4 Expected Behavioral 2050 response ‐4.0%
SFR 2050 change (scale factor): 1.012 SFR 2050 change (scale factor) 0.960
IRR 2050 change (scale factor) 1.030 New MFR 2050 change (scale factor) 0.960
Growth in Warmer Inland Areas (Central and O.M.)
Δ ETo new growth vs. existing avg.:6.0%
New SFR outdoor use change (gpd): 9
New SFR 2050 change (scale factor): 1.024 MFR Submetering (new construction)
New IRR 2050 change (scale factor) 1.060 Indoor Usage change per MFR unit ‐10%
Usage change per MFR unit (gpd)‐15
New MFR 2050 change (scale factor) 0.906
Source: Savings rate: MWDSC/EBMUD for DWR:
"Evaluation of California Weather‐Based 'Smart' Irrigation
Programs", July 2009
Penetration rate: District estimate
Source: District estimates
Source: SDCWA 2013 Water Facilities Master Plan,
Appendix E: "Analysis of Potential Climate Effects on Water
Authority Demands." The ETo percentage increase for 2050
is derived from Figure 6, which shows a 1.9% increase by
2035.
Source: Savings rate: EPA WaterSense, adjusted
downward from 16 gpd for a four person household, to
District PPH = 3.2.
Penetration rate: District estimate
Source: Savings rate: Based on District PPH of 3.2,
5 flushes per day per person (AWWARF "Residential End
Uses of Water", 1999), and savings of 0.32 gpf (1.28 gpf vs.
1.6 gpf for 1992 Code)
Penetration rates: District estimates
Source: Reduction percentages are District estimates
based on the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance
and based on the extensive use of turf in District
developments pre‐dating the ordinance (2011).
Source: Delta ETo is for District growth areas to the east vs.
existing geographic centroid. ETo data interpolated from
County of San Diego Water Efficient Landscape Design
Manual (2010), Appendix A: Reference ET Data. Source
data is from DWR / CIMIS.
Source: District estimates. Assumes all new MFR units will
be submetered.
Source / Notes: Price Increase: District estimate based on
SDCWA projections;
P‐E: District estimate based on SDCWA Board memo
December 2011;
Behavioral Component: This is the non‐hardware,
behavioral portion of conservation not already accounted
for by the other factors. District estimate.
Application: SFR: all; MFR: new only (requires
submetering for transmission of price signal to consumer)
Page 2 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Unit Use Adjusts
Otay Water Demand Forecast Worksheet 0
Unit Use Factor Adjustments CENTRAL, OTAY MESA LA PRESA HILLSDALE, REGULATORY
2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
SUMMARY
EXISTING ACCOUNTS
SFR 0.98 0.94 0.90 0.98 0.93 0.88 0.98 0.93 0.87
MFR 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96
NEW ACCOUNTS
SFR 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.79 0.78 0.77
MFR 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.87 0.85 0.84
PC 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
IRR 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
SUMMARY ‐‐ BY COMPONENT
EXISTING ACCOUNTS
SFR CUSTOMERS
Weather‐Based Irrigation Controllers 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.98
Turf Retirement 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.96 0.94
Warming Temperatures 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.02
Subtotal Irrigation (multiplicative) 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.96 0.94
HE Clothes Washers 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.99
HE Toilets 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.99
Price Response / Adtl. Behavioral 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96
Subtotal Indoor (additive) 0.99 0.96 0.94 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.96 0.94
TOTAL 0.98 0.94 0.90 0.98 0.93 0.88 0.98 0.93 0.87
MFR CUSTOMERS
HE Clothes Washers 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98
HE Toilets 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
TOTAL 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98
IRR CUSTOMERS
Weather‐Based Irrigation Controllers 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.97
Turf Retirements 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96
Warming Temperatures 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.01 1.02 1.03
TOTAL 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96
NEW ACCOUNTS
SFR CUSTOMERS
Landscape Ordinance 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.84 0.84 0.84
Weather‐Based Irrigation Controllers 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98
Growth in Warmer Inland Areas 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warming Temperatures 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.02
Subtotal Irrigation (multiplicative) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.84
HE Clothes Washers 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
HE Toilets 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Price Response / Adtl. Behavioral 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96
Subtotal Indoor (additive) 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.94 0.93
TOTAL 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.79 0.78 0.77
MFR CUSTOMERS
MFR Submetering 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Price Response / Adtl. Behavioral 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96
Subtotal Irrigation (multiplicative) 0.90 0.88 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.87
HE Clothes Washers 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
HE Toilets 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Subtotal Indoor (additive) 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
TOTAL 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.87 0.85 0.84
IRR CUSTOMERS
Landscape Ordinance ( inc. controllers) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Growth in Warmer Inland Areas 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warming Temperatures 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
TOTAL 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
Page 3 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Unit Use Adjusts
SANDAG Series 13 Growth Forecast, Adjusted 0
Service
Area System Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 43,214 42,935 279 14,674 10,104 3,658 912 5,738 2.93
2020 43,437 43,201 236 14,816 10,375 3,529 912 8,364 2.92
2035 45,914 45,595 319 15,484 11,338 3,234 912 9,192 2.94
2050 50,846 50,591 255 17,119 12,976 3,231 912 10,230 2.96
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
2020 1.01 1.01 0.85 1.01 1.03 0.96 1.00 1.46 1.00
2035 1.06 1.06 1.14 1.06 1.12 0.88 1.00 1.60 1.01
2050 1.18 1.18 0.91 1.17 1.28 0.88 1.00 1.78 1.01
2012 13,765 13,731 34 4,817 3,942 774 101 4,617 2.85
2020 14,027 14,001 26 4,828 3,954 773 101 4,486 2.90
2035 14,845 14,803 42 5,078 4,203 774 101 4,490 2.92
2050 15,358 15,306 52 5,285 4,411 773 101 4,490 2.90
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
2020 1.02 1.02 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
2035 1.08 1.08 1.24 1.05 1.07 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
2050 1.12 1.11 1.53 1.10 1.12 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
2012 6,530 6,505 25 2,204 1,941 245 18 2,222 2.95
2020 7,040 7,026 14 2,340 2,077 245 18 2,653 3.00
2035 7,799 7,776 23 2,557 2,294 245 18 3,025 3.04
2050 8,996 8,965 31 2,925 2,679 244 2 3,515 3.06
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
2020 1.08 1.08 0.56 1.06 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.19 1.02
2035 1.19 1.20 0.92 1.16 1.18 1.00 1.00 1.36 1.03
2050 1.38 1.38 1.24 1.33 1.38 1.00 0.11 1.58 1.04
2012 63,509 63,171 338 21,695 15,987 4,677 1,031 12,577 2.91
2020 64,504 64,228 276 21,984 16,406 4,547 1,031 15,503 2.92
2035 68,558 68,174 384 23,119 17,835 4,253 1,031 16,707 2.95
2050 75,200 74,862 338 25,329 20,066 4,248 1,015 18,235 2.96
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
2020 1.02 1.02 0.82 1.01 1.03 0.97 1.00 1.23 1.00
2035 1.08 1.08 1.14 1.07 1.12 0.91 1.00 1.33 1.01
2050 1.18 1.19 1.00 1.17 1.26 0.91 0.98 1.45 1.02
2012 135,488 135,386 102 40,741 29,869 10,675 197 20,008 3.32
2020 167,700 167,622 78 49,709 31,975 17,536 197 38,089 3.37
2035 191,586 191,452 134 56,490 34,867 21,426 197 45,000 3.39
2050 202,948 202,775 173 60,472 36,567 23,708 197 53,244 3.35
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
2020 1.24 1.24 0.76 1.22 1.07 1.64 1.00 1.90 1.01
2035 1.41 1.41 1.31 1.39 1.17 2.01 1.00 2.25 1.02
2050 1.50 1.50 1.70 1.48 1.22 2.22 1.00 2.66 1.01
2012 6,196 122 6,074 25 23 ‐ ‐ 14,094 4.88
2020 12,807 124 12,683 24 24 ‐ ‐ 17,281 5.17
2035 24,135 11,412 12,723 3,054 267 2,787 ‐ 21,108 3.74
2050 29,729 16,978 12,751 4,580 289 4,291 ‐ 37,064 3.71
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
2020 2.07 1.02 2.09 0.96 1.04 ‐ ‐ 1.23 1.06
2035 3.90 93.54 2.09 122.16 11.61 ‐ ‐ 1.50 0.77
2050 4.80 139.16 2.10 183.20 12.57 ‐ ‐ 2.63 0.76
2012 205,193 198,679 6,514 62,461 45,879 15,352 1,228 46,679 3.18
2020 245,011 231,974 13,037 71,717 48,405 22,083 1,228 70,873 3.23
2035 284,279 271,038 13,241 82,663 52,969 28,466 1,228 82,815 3.28
2050 307,877 294,615 13,262 90,381 56,922 32,247 1,212 108,543 3.26
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
2020 1.19 1.17 2.00 1.15 1.06 1.44 1.00 1.52 1.02
2035 1.39 1.36 2.03 1.32 1.15 1.85 1.00 1.77 1.03
2050 1.50 1.48 2.04 1.45 1.24 2.10 0.99 2.33 1.02
North
Service
Area
La Presa
Hillsdale
Regulatory
Total North
Area
Central Service Area
Otay Mesa Service Area
Total District
Page 4 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors SA
Demand Forecast Scale Factors, by Service Area 0
System 2020 2035 2050
2013
% of
Total Use Notes
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐3%‐8%‐13% 59%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 20%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 11%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐2%‐5%‐8% 10%
SFR 1.00 1.04 1.13
MFR 0.96 0.88 0.87
PC 1.42 1.55 1.71
IRR 1.04 1.08 1.16
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐8%‐14% 74%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 6%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 6%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐3%‐6% 13%
SFR 0.98 0.98 0.97
MFR 1.01 1.01 0.99
PC 0.96 0.95 0.94
IRR 0.99 1.02 1.04
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐4%‐10%‐16% 75%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 3%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 13%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐2%‐6%‐9% 9%
SFR 1.04 1.08 1.18
MFR 1.01 1.02 1.01
PC 1.17 1.32 1.52
IRR 1.06 1.13 1.27
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐7%‐12% 66%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 13%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 10%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐4%‐7% 11%
SFR 1.01 1.04 1.12
MFR 0.97 0.91 0.90
PC 1.21 1.29 1.40
IRR 1.02 1.06 1.13
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐3%‐7%‐11% 62%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR ‐6%‐8%‐10% 16%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐3%‐4%‐4% 9%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐5%‐7%‐9% 12%
SFR 1.05 1.09 1.09
MFR 1.57 1.88 2.01
PC 1.85 2.17 2.55
IRR 1.20 1.32 1.41
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐15%‐16% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 75%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐4%‐8%‐13% 23%
SFR 1.05 8.51 9.01
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 1.20 1.45 2.52
IRR 1.17 1.40 2.31
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐3%‐7%‐11% 57%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR ‐4%‐8%‐10% 13%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 16%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐4%‐7%‐9% 13%
SFR 1.04 1.09 1.11
MFR 1.40 1.77 1.94
PC 1.48 1.72 2.23
IRR 1.15 1.28 1.43
Hillsdale
Regulatory
Total North
Area
La Presa
Central Service
Area
Otay Mesa
Service Area
Total District
Net Change Unit Use: These cells calculate the
weighted average of the Existing and New Customer
adjustments from the Unit Use Adjustments
worksheet, using the appropriate factors from the
Scaling Factor table (SFR Units, MFR Units, and
Employment). For example, for an SFR growth scaling
factor of 1.28 (La Pressa, 2050), the calculation is {(1 x
Existing) + (0.28 x New)} / 1.28. The MFR and PC
calculation cells do the same calculation but check to
see if the scaling factor is > 1 and adjust accordingly.
The IRR calculates its own scaling factor as the
weighted average of the SFR, MFR, and PC scaling
factors, weighted by 2013 % of total water use, and
uses this to calculate the weighted average of Existing
and New. These cells adjust according to the selected
Conservation Factor Index selected in the drop‐down
box in the title bar, e.g., they all go to 0% if the
conservation index is set to "Without Conservation."
2013 % of Total Water Use: Calculated from data in
the SA% Sum MGD worksheet. The percentages are
used in the Net Change in Unit Use calculation for PC
customers as described above.
Demand Scale Factors (blue‐shaded cells): These
calculate the demand increase relative to 2013 for
each customer type and service area. For SFR and
MFR, the calculation sequence is Growth Scale Factor,
x Net Change Unit Use (1 minus the Change %), x a
factor to account for any change in the Persons Per
Household (PPH) data. The application of the PPH
adjustment assumes the change in household size
affects only indoor water use, and so applies to the
ratio of indoor to outdoor use for account type (SFR,
MFR) and service area.
For error checking only. Not used in forecast
calculations. (The forecast for Total District is the sum of the individual SAs or PZs.)
See the Forecast SA worksheet for the development of the Otay Mesa MFR component.
Page 5 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors SA
0
OWD WATER DEMAND FORECAST BY SERVICE AREA
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
MGD MGD MGD MGD Factor Factor Factor
LA PRESA SYSTEM -- SALES
SFR 2.62 2.61 2.71 2.94 1.00 1.04 1.13
MFR 0.88 0.84 0.77 0.77 0.96 0.88 0.87
PC 0.50 0.71 0.77 0.85 1.42 1.55 1.71
IRR 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.53 1.04 1.08 1.16
TEMP 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02
TOTAL 4.45 4.66 4.77 5.11 5% 7% 15%
HILLSDALE SYSTEM -- SALES
SFR 2.07 2.04 2.04 2.01 0.98 0.98 0.97
MFR 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 1.01 1.01 0.99
PC 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.96 0.95 0.94
IRR 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.99 1.02 1.04
TEMP 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
TOTAL 2.79 2.75 2.75 2.73 -2% -1% -2%
REGULATORY SYSTEM -- SALES
SFR 0.92 0.95 0.99 1.08 1.04 1.08 1.18
MFR 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.01 1.02 1.01
PC 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.24 1.17 1.32 1.52
IRR 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 1.06 1.13 1.27
TEMP 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
TOTAL 1.22 1.30 1.37 1.51 7% 12% 24%
CENTRAL SYSTEM -- SALES
SFR 9.75 10.24 10.66 10.63 1.05 1.09 1.09
MFR 2.50 3.93 4.69 5.03 1.57 1.88 2.01
PC 1.37 2.53 2.96 3.49 1.85 2.17 2.55
IRR 1.93 2.06 2.32 2.39 1.07 1.20 1.24
TEMP 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15
TOTAL 15.64 18.91 20.78 21.69 21% 33% 39%
OTAY MESA SYSTEM -- SALES
SFR 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 1.05 8.51 9.01
MFR 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.71 0 2,787 4,291
PC 2.08 2.50 3.02 5.23 1.20 1.45 2.52
IRR 0.63 0.74 0.89 1.46 1.17 1.40 2.31
TEMP 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.20
TOTAL 2.75 3.45 4.61 7.65 25% 67% 178%
NORTH DISTRICT -- SALES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 5.60 5.60 5.74 6.04 0% 2% 8%
MFR 1.08 1.05 0.97 0.97 -3% -10% -11%
PC 0.82 1.05 1.14 1.25 28% 38% 52%
IRR 0.93 0.96 0.99 1.05 3% 6% 12%
TEMP 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 122% 122% 122%
TOTAL 8.46 8.71 8.89 9.35 3% 5% 10%
SOUTH DISTRICT -- SALES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 9.75 10.24 10.70 10.68 5% 10% 9%
MFR 2.50 3.93 5.15 5.74 57% 106% 130%
PC 3.44 5.03 5.98 8.72 46% 74% 153%
IRR 2.56 2.81 3.20 3.86 10% 25% 51%
TEMP 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.35 147% 147% 147%
TOTAL 18.40 22.36 25.38 29.34 22% 38% 59%
TOTAL DISTRICT -- SALES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 15.35 15.84 16.44 16.71 3% 7% 9%
MFR 3.58 4.98 6.12 6.70 39% 71% 87%
PC 4.27 6.08 7.12 9.96 43% 67% 134%
IRR 3.49 3.76 4.19 4.90 8% 20% 40%
TEMP 0.16 0.40 0.40 0.40 144% 144% 144%
TOTAL 26.86 31.06 34.27 38.68 16% 28% 44%
Page 6 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast SA
0
OWD WATER DEMAND FORECAST BY SERVICE AREA
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
MGD MGD MGD MGD Factor Factor Factor
LA PRESA SYSTEM -- DELIVERIES UAF Water = 5.0%
SFR 2.75 2.74 2.85 3.09 1.00 1.04 1.13
MFR 0.92 0.88 0.81 0.80 0.96 0.88 0.87
PC 0.52 0.74 0.81 0.89 1.42 1.55 1.71
IRR 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.56 1.04 1.08 1.16
TEMP 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02
TOTAL 4.67 4.89 5.00 5.37 5% 7% 15%
HILLSDALE SYSTEM -- DELIVERIES
SFR 2.17 2.14 2.14 2.11 0.98 0.98 0.97
MFR 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 1.01 1.01 0.99
PC 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.96 0.95 0.94
IRR 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.99 1.02 1.04
TEMP 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
TOTAL 2.93 2.88 2.89 2.86 -2% -1% -2%
REGULATORY SYSTEM -- DELIVERIES
SFR 0.96 1.00 1.04 1.14 1.04 1.08 1.18
MFR 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.01 1.02 1.01
PC 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.25 1.17 1.32 1.52
IRR 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.14 1.06 1.13 1.27
TEMP 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
TOTAL 1.28 1.37 1.44 1.58 7% 12% 24%
CENTRAL SYSTEM -- DELIVERIES
SFR 10.23 10.75 11.19 11.16 1.05 1.09 1.09
MFR 2.62 4.13 4.92 5.28 1.57 1.88 2.01
PC 1.44 2.65 3.11 3.66 1.85 2.17 2.55
IRR 2.03 2.17 2.43 2.51 1.07 1.20 1.24
TEMP 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.16
TOTAL 16.43 19.85 21.81 22.77 21% 33% 39%
OTAY MESA SYSTEM -- DELIVERIES
SFR 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 1.05 8.51 9.01
MFR 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.74 0 2,787 4,291
PC 2.18 2.63 3.17 5.49 1.20 1.45 2.52
IRR 0.66 0.78 0.93 1.54 1.17 1.40 2.31
TEMP 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.21
TOTAL 2.89 3.62 4.84 8.03 25% 67% 178%
NORTH DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 5.88 5.88 6.02 6.34 0% 2% 8%
MFR 1.13 1.10 1.02 1.01 -3% -10% -11%
PC 0.86 1.11 1.20 1.31 28% 38% 52%
IRR 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.10 3% 6% 12%
TEMP 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 122% 122% 122%
TOTAL 8.88 9.14 9.33 9.81 3% 5% 10%
SOUTH DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 10.24 10.75 11.24 11.21 5% 10% 9%
MFR 2.62 4.13 5.41 6.02 57% 106% 130%
PC 3.62 5.28 6.28 9.15 46% 74% 153%
IRR 2.69 2.95 3.36 4.05 10% 25% 51%
TEMP 0.15 0.37 0.37 0.37 147% 147% 147%
TOTAL 19.32 23.48 26.65 30.80 22% 38% 59%
TOTAL DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 16.12 16.63 17.26 17.55 3% 7% 9%
MFR 3.76 5.22 6.43 7.04 39% 71% 87%
PC 4.48 6.39 7.48 10.46 43% 67% 134%
IRR 3.67 3.95 4.40 5.15 8% 20% 40%
TEMP 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.42 144% 144% 144%
TOTAL 28.20 32.62 35.99 40.62 16% 28% 44%
Page 7 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast SA
0
OWD WATER DEMAND FORECAST BY SERVICE AREA
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
AF/yr AF/yr AF/yr AF/yr
LA PRESA SYSTEM % Change vs. 2013
SFR 3,100 3,100 3,200 3,500 0% 3% 13%
MFR 1,000 1,000 900 900 0% -10% -10%
PC 600 800 900 1,000 33% 50% 67%
IRR 500 600 600 600 20% 20% 20%
TEMP 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 5,200 5,500 5,600 6,000 6% 8% 15%
HILLDALE SYSTEM % Change vs. 2013
SFR 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 0% 0% 0%
MFR 200 200 200 200 0% 0% 0%
PC 200 200 200 200 0% 0% 0%
IRR 400 400 400 500 0% 0% 25%
TEMP 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 3,300 3,200 3,200 3,200 -3% -3% -3%
REGULATORY SYSTEM % Change vs. 2013
SFR 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,300 0% 9% 18%
MFR 0 0 0 0
PC 200 200 200 300 0% 0% 50%
IRR 100 100 100 200 0% 0% 100%
TEMP 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,800 7% 14% 29%
CENTRAL SYSTEM % Change vs. 2013
SFR 11,500 12,000 12,500 12,500 4% 9% 9%
MFR 2,900 4,600 5,500 5,900 59% 90% 103%
PC 1,600 3,000 3,500 4,100 88% 119% 156%
IRR 2,300 2,400 2,700 2,800 4% 17% 22%
TEMP 100 200 200 200
TOTAL 18,400 22,300 24,500 25,500 21% 33% 39%
OTAY MESA SYSTEM % Change vs. 2013
SFR 0 0 100 100
MFR 0 0 500 800
PC 2,400 2,900 3,600 6,200 21% 50% 158%
IRR 700 900 1,000 1,700 29% 43% 143%
TEMP 0 200 200 200
TOTAL 3,200 4,100 5,400 9,000 28% 69% 181%
NORTH DISTRICT % Change vs. 2013
SFR 6,600 6,600 6,800 7,100 0% 3% 8%
MFR 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,100 -8% -15% -15%
PC 1,000 1,200 1,300 1,500 20% 30% 50%
IRR 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,200 0% 9% 9%
TEMP 0 100 100 100
TOTAL 10,000 10,200 10,500 11,000 2% 5% 10%
SOUTH DISTRICT % Change vs. 2013
SFR 11,500 12,100 12,600 12,600 5% 10% 10%
MFR 2,900 4,600 6,100 6,800 59% 110% 134%
PC 4,100 5,900 7,000 10,300 44% 71% 151%
IRR 3,000 3,300 3,800 4,500 10% 27% 50%
TEMP 200 400 400 400 100% 100% 100%
TOTAL 21,700 26,300 29,900 34,500 21% 38% 59%
TOTAL DISTRICT % Change vs. 2013
SFR 18,100 18,600 19,400 19,700 3% 7% 9%
MFR 4,200 5,900 7,200 7,900 40% 71% 88%
PC 5,000 7,200 8,400 11,700 44% 68% 134%
IRR 4,100 4,400 4,900 5,800 7% 20% 41%
TEMP 200 500 500 500 150% 150% 150%
TOTAL 31,600 36,600 40,300 45,500 16% 28% 44%
Page 8 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast SA
SANDAG Series 13 Growth Forecast by Pressure Zone, Adjusted 0
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 1,623 1,623 ‐ 478 478 ‐ ‐ 70 3.40
2020 1,643 1,643 ‐ 478 478 ‐ ‐ 70 3.44
2035 1,644 1,644 ‐ 478 478 ‐ ‐ 70 3.44
2050 1,623 1,623 ‐ 479 479 ‐ ‐ 70 3.39
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2050 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00
2012 18,048 17,917 131 5,491 4,408 952 131 2,109 3.26
2020 18,074 17,975 99 5,520 4,437 952 131 2,567 3.26
2035 18,622 18,469 153 5,653 4,570 952 131 2,800 3.27
2050 19,397 19,207 190 5,943 4,996 816 131 3,414 3.23
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.22 1.00
*2035 1.03 1.03 1.17 1.03 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.00
*2050 1.07 1.07 1.45 1.08 1.13 0.86 1.00 1.62 0.99
2012 4,217 4,101 116 1,325 1,060 85 180 281 3.10
2020 4,303 4,192 111 1,347 1,082 85 180 281 3.11
2035 4,341 4,215 126 1,347 1,082 85 180 455 3.13
2050 5,378 5,364 14 1,771 1,507 84 180 852 3.03
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 0.96 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.03 1.03 1.09 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.62 1.01
*2050 1.28 1.31 0.12 1.34 1.42 0.99 1.00 3.03 0.98
2012 17,906 17,874 32 6,938 3,716 2,621 601 3,173 2.58
2020 18,010 17,984 26 7,029 3,936 2,492 601 5,341 2.56
2035 19,870 19,830 40 7,561 4,763 2,197 601 5,762 2.62
2050 22,447 22,396 51 8,284 5,352 2,331 601 5,789 2.70
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 0.81 1.01 1.06 0.95 1.00 1.68 0.99
*2035 1.11 1.11 1.25 1.09 1.28 0.84 1.00 1.82 1.02
*2050 1.25 1.25 1.59 1.19 1.44 0.89 1.00 1.82 1.05
2012 954 954 ‐ 301 301 ‐ ‐ 78 3.17
2020 935 935 ‐ 301 301 ‐ ‐ 78 3.11
2035 965 965 ‐ 304 304 ‐ ‐ 78 3.17
2050 1,544 1,544 ‐ 501 501 ‐ ‐ 78 3.08
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
*2035 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.01 1.01 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00
*2050 1.62 1.62 ‐ 1.66 1.66 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.97
2012 466 466 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 27 3.30
2020 472 472 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 27 3.35
2035 472 472 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 27 3.35
2050 457 457 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 27 3.24
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2050 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
640
850
657
1004
1050
North
Service Area
‐‐ La Presa
493
Page 9 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 10,336 10,302 34 3,628 2,753 774 101 4,017 2.84
2020 10,525 10,499 26 3,634 2,760 773 101 3,886 2.89
2035 11,047 11,005 42 3,797 2,922 774 101 3,890 2.90
2050 11,364 11,312 52 3,924 3,050 773 101 3,890 2.88
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
*2035 1.07 1.07 1.24 1.05 1.06 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
*2050 1.10 1.10 1.53 1.08 1.11 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
2012 3,011 3,011 ‐ 1,049 1,049 ‐ ‐ 544 2.87
2020 3,076 3,076 ‐ 1,054 1,054 ‐ ‐ 544 2.92
2035 3,368 3,368 ‐ 1,140 1,140 ‐ ‐ 544 2.95
2050 3,473 3,473 ‐ 1,190 1,190 ‐ ‐ 544 2.92
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.12 1.12 ‐ 1.09 1.09 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.03
*2050 1.15 1.15 ‐ 1.13 1.13 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
2012 418 418 ‐ 140 140 ‐ ‐ 56 2.99
2020 426 426 ‐ 140 140 ‐ ‐ 56 3.04
2035 430 430 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 56 3.05
2050 521 521 ‐ 171 171 ‐ ‐ 56 3.05
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.03 1.03 ‐ 1.01 1.01 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2050 1.25 1.25 ‐ 1.22 1.22 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
2012 522 522 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 783 2.16
2020 528 528 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 1,125 2.18
2035 534 534 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 1,129 2.21
2050 528 528 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 1,129 2.18
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.44 1.01
*2035 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.44 1.02
*2050 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.44 1.01
2012 1,468 1,451 17 444 443 1 ‐ 250 3.27
2020 1,665 1,653 12 495 494 1 ‐ 339 3.34
2035 1,656 1,642 14 492 491 1 ‐ 391 3.34
2050 1,632 1,616 16 492 491 1 ‐ 395 3.28
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.13 1.14 0.71 1.11 1.12 1.00 ‐ 1.36 1.02
*2035 1.13 1.13 0.82 1.11 1.11 1.00 ‐ 1.56 1.02
*2050 1.11 1.11 0.94 1.11 1.11 1.00 ‐ 1.58 1.01
2012 47 47 ‐ 13 13 ‐ ‐ 5 3.62
2020 43 43 ‐ 12 12 ‐ ‐ 5 3.58
2035 46 46 ‐ 13 13 ‐ ‐ 5 3.54
2050 64 64 ‐ 18 18 ‐ ‐ 5 3.56
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 0.91 0.91 ‐ 0.92 0.92 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.99
*2035 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
*2050 1.36 1.36 ‐ 1.38 1.38 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
2012 97 97 ‐ 29 29 ‐ ‐ 13 3.34
2020 180 180 ‐ 55 55 ‐ ‐ 13 3.27
2035 182 182 ‐ 55 55 ‐ ‐ 13 3.31
2050 180 180 ‐ 55 55 ‐ ‐ 13 3.27
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.86 1.86 ‐ 1.90 1.90 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
*2035 1.88 1.88 ‐ 1.90 1.90 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.99
*2050 1.86 1.86 ‐ 1.90 1.90 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
2012 3,036 3,028 8 1,011 991 2 18 790 3.00
2020 3,239 3,237 2 1,071 1,051 2 18 790 3.02
2035 3,989 3,980 9 1,290 1,270 2 18 1,106 3.09
2050 4,654 4,639 15 1,514 1,511 1 2 1,592 3.06
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.07 1.07 0.25 1.06 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.31 1.31 1.13 1.28 1.28 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.03
*2050 1.53 1.53 1.88 1.50 1.52 0.50 0.11 2.02 1.02
North
Service Area
‐‐ Hillsdale
803
(inc. 860)
978
1200
1090
1296
North
Service Area
‐‐ Regulatory
944
520
832
Page 10 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 1,196 1,196 ‐ 408 408 ‐ ‐ 366 2.93
2020 1,218 1,218 ‐ 408 408 ‐ ‐ 366 2.99
2035 1,224 1,224 ‐ 408 408 ‐ ‐ 366 3.00
2050 1,698 1,698 ‐ 528 528 ‐ ‐ 366 3.22
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2050 1.42 1.42 ‐ 1.29 1.29 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.10
2012 107 107 ‐ 37 37 ‐ ‐ 15 2.89
2020 109 109 ‐ 37 37 ‐ ‐ 15 2.95
2035 110 110 ‐ 37 37 ‐ ‐ 15 2.97
2050 183 183 ‐ 56 56 ‐ ‐ 15 3.27
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.03 1.03 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.03
*2050 1.71 1.71 ‐ 1.51 1.51 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.13
2012 57 57 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.85
2020 58 58 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.90
2035 58 58 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.90
2050 57 57 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.85
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.02
*2035 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.02
*2050 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.00
2012 5,223 5,199 24 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 1,653 3.60
2020 5,289 5,268 21 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 3,584 3.65
2035 5,309 5,275 34 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 4,551 3.65
2050 5,267 5,224 43 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 5,446 3.62
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 2.17 1.01
*2035 1.02 1.01 1.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 2.75 1.01
*2050 1.01 1.00 1.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 3.29 1.00
2012 8,215 8,188 27 2,317 1,911 406 ‐ 939 3.53
2020 8,706 8,687 19 2,421 1,911 510 ‐ 1,239 3.59
2035 8,755 8,717 38 2,421 1,911 510 ‐ 1,299 3.60
2050 8,714 8,664 50 2,425 1,911 514 ‐ 1,299 3.57
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.06 1.06 0.70 1.04 1.00 1.26 ‐ 1.32 1.02
*2035 1.07 1.06 1.41 1.04 1.00 1.26 ‐ 1.38 1.02
*2050 1.06 1.06 1.85 1.05 1.00 1.27 ‐ 1.38 1.01
2012 3,643 3,636 7 1,268 628 640 ‐ 686 2.87
2020 3,698 3,693 5 1,268 628 640 ‐ 999 2.91
2035 3,718 3,707 11 1,268 628 640 ‐ 999 2.92
2050 3,703 3,689 14 1,268 628 640 ‐ 999 2.91
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.46 1.02
*2035 1.02 1.02 1.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.46 1.02
*2050 1.02 1.01 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.46 1.01
2012 985 985 ‐ 262 262 ‐ ‐ 57 3.76
2020 1,359 1,359 ‐ 358 358 ‐ ‐ 57 3.80
2035 1,362 1,362 ‐ 358 358 ‐ ‐ 57 3.80
2050 1,457 1,457 ‐ 393 393 ‐ ‐ 57 3.71
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.38 1.38 ‐ 1.37 1.37 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.38 1.38 ‐ 1.37 1.37 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2050 1.48 1.48 ‐ 1.50 1.50 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.99
Central
Service Area
1485
1530
1655
340
458
485
580
Page 11 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 19,314 19,314 ‐ 5,956 4,454 1,502 ‐ 3,476 3.24
2020 23,065 23,065 ‐ 6,992 4,455 2,537 ‐ 5,048 3.30
2035 30,181 30,181 ‐ 8,989 5,879 3,110 ‐ 6,560 3.36
2050 32,076 32,076 ‐ 9,624 6,516 3,108 ‐ 7,185 3.33
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.19 1.19 ‐ 1.17 1.00 1.69 ‐ 1.45 1.02
*2035 1.56 1.56 ‐ 1.51 1.32 2.07 ‐ 1.89 1.04
*2050 1.66 1.66 ‐ 1.62 1.46 2.07 ‐ 2.07 1.03
2012 55,090 55,046 44 16,793 12,154 4,442 197 6,389 3.28
2020 62,325 62,292 33 18,732 12,872 5,663 197 11,887 3.33
2035 71,106 71,055 51 21,211 12,077 8,937 197 15,686 3.35
2050 80,384 80,318 66 24,173 12,867 11,109 197 21,884 3.32
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.13 1.13 0.75 1.12 1.06 1.27 1.00 1.86 1.01
*2035 1.29 1.29 1.16 1.26 0.99 2.01 1.00 2.46 1.02
*2050 1.46 1.46 1.50 1.44 1.06 2.50 1.00 3.43 1.01
2012 42,536 42,536 ‐ 12,584 9,127 3,457 ‐ 6,717 3.38
2020 62,051 62,051 ‐ 18,211 10,252 7,958 ‐ 15,184 3.41
2035 69,941 69,941 ‐ 20,516 12,515 8,001 ‐ 15,757 3.41
2050 70,145 70,145 ‐ 20,862 12,753 8,109 ‐ 16,283 3.36
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.46 1.46 ‐ 1.45 1.12 2.30 ‐ 2.26 1.01
*2035 1.64 1.64 ‐ 1.63 1.37 2.31 ‐ 2.35 1.01
*2050 1.65 1.65 ‐ 1.66 1.40 2.35 ‐ 2.42 0.99
2012 482 482 ‐ 117 117 ‐ ‐ 91 4.12
2020 1,207 1,207 ‐ 283 283 ‐ ‐ 91 4.27
2035 1,214 1,214 ‐ 283 283 ‐ ‐ 91 4.29
2050 1,202 1,202 ‐ 283 283 ‐ ‐ 91 4.25
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 2.50 2.50 ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.04
*2035 2.52 2.52 ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.04
*2050 2.49 2.49 ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.03
2012 6,196 122 6,074 25 23 ‐ ‐ 14,094 4.88
2020 12,807 124 12,683 24 24 ‐ ‐ 17,281 5.17
2035 24,135 11,412 12,723 3,054 267 ‐ ‐ 21,108 3.74
2050 29,729 16,978 12,751 4,580 289 ‐ ‐ 37,064 3.71
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 2.07 1.02 2.09 0.96 1.04 ‐ ‐ 1.23 1.06
*2035 3.90 93.54 2.09 122.16 11.61 ‐ ‐ 1.50 0.77
*2050 4.80 139.16 2.10 183.20 12.57 ‐ ‐ 2.63 0.76
2012 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2020 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2035 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2050 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
*2035 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
*2050 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2012 205,193 198,679 6,514 62,461 45,879 15,352 1,228 46,679 3.18
2020 245,011 231,974 13,037 71,717 48,405 22,083 1,228 70,873 3.23
2035 284,279 271,038 13,241 82,663 52,969 28,466 1,228 82,815 3.28
2050 307,877 294,615 13,262 90,381 56,922 32,247 1,212 108,543 3.26
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.19 1.17 2.00 1.15 1.06 1.44 1.00 1.52 1.02
*2035 1.39 1.36 2.03 1.32 1.15 1.85 1.00 1.77 1.03
*2050 1.50 1.48 2.04 1.45 1.24 2.10 0.99 2.33 1.02
Unassigned 0
Total District
711
980
1100
Otay Mesa
Service Area
870
(inc. 571)
Central
Service Area
624
Page 12 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
Demand Forecast Scale Factors, by Pressure Zone 0
Pressure
Zone 2020 2035 2050
2013
% of
Total Use Notes
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐7%‐12% 99%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 1%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR 0% 0% 0% 0%
SFR 0.99 0.94 0.88
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 1.00 1.00 1.00
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐7%‐12% 69%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 20%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 9%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐3%‐6% 2%
SFR 0.98 0.96 0.99
MFR 0.99 0.99 0.83
PC 1.20 1.29 1.56
IRR 1.01 1.02 1.05
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐7%‐13% 61%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 17%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐3%‐4% 8%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐4%‐10% 13%
SFR 1.00 0.95 1.22
MFR 1.00 1.00 0.94
PC 0.99 1.57 2.90
IRR 1.00 1.03 1.34
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐3%‐9%‐13% 48%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 22%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐3%‐3%‐4% 14%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐3%‐7%‐9% 16%
SFR 1.02 1.18 1.29
MFR 0.94 0.84 0.91
PC 1.64 1.76 1.75
IRR 1.10 1.17 1.24
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐7%‐14% 100%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐3%‐12% 0%
SFR 0.97 0.94 1.41
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.99 0.98 1.47
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐7%‐12% 99%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐2%‐4% 1%
SFR 0.99 0.94 0.87
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.99 0.98 0.96
493
640
657
850
1004
1050
Net Change Unit Use: These cells calculate the
weighted average of the Existing and New Customer
adjustments from the Unit Use Adjustments
worksheet, using the appropriate factors from the
Scaling Factor table (SFR Units, MFR Units, and
Employment). For example, for an SFR growth
scaling factor of 1.28 (La Pressa, 2050), the
calculation is {(1 x Existing) + (0.28 x New)} / 1.28.
The MFR and PC calculation cells do the same
calculation but check to see if the scaling factor is > 1
and adjust accordingly. The IRR calculates its own
scaling factor as the weighted average of the SFR,
MFR, and PC scaling factors, weighted by 2013 % of
total water use, and uses this to calculate the
weighted average of Existing and New. These cells
adjust according to the selected Conservation Factor
Index selected in the drop‐down box in the title bar,
e.g., they all go to 0% if the conservation index is set
to "Without Conservation."
2013 % of Total Water Use: Calculated from data in
the SA% Sum MGD worksheet. The percentages are
used in the Net Change in Unit Use calculation for PC
customers as described above.
Demand Scale Factors (blue‐shaded cells): These
calculate the demand increase relative to 2013 for
each customer type and service area. For SFR and
MFR, the calculation sequence is Growth Scale
Factor, x Net Change Unit Use (1 minus the Change
%), x a factor to account for any change in the
Persons Per Household (PPH) data. The application
of the PPH adjustment assumes the change in
household size affects only indoor water use, and so
applies to the ratio of indoor to outdoor use for
account type (SFR, MFR) and service area.
Page 13 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
Pressure
Zone 2020 2035 2050
2013
% of
Total Use Notes
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐8%‐14% 68%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 9%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 9%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐3%‐5% 14%
SFR 0.98 0.98 0.96
MFR 1.01 1.01 0.99
PC 0.96 0.95 0.94
IRR 0.99 1.01 1.02
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐9%‐14% 84%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 1%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐4%‐6% 13%
SFR 0.99 1.00 0.98
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.99 1.04 1.06
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐8%‐15% 98%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐3%‐7% 2%
SFR 0.98 0.94 1.05
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.99 0.98 1.13
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR 0% 0% 0% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 18%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 51%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐6%‐7%‐9% 31%
SFR ‐ ‐ ‐
MFR 1.01 1.01 0.99
PC 1.40 1.40 1.39
IRR 1.24 1.23 1.21
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐4%‐9%‐14% 76%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 8%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐3%‐5%‐7% 16%
SFR 1.08 1.02 0.96
MFR 1.02 1.01 0.98
PC 1.33 1.52 1.52
IRR 1.10 1.09 1.08
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐1%‐7%‐16% 83%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 17%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR 0% 0% 0% 0%
SFR 0.91 0.92 1.16
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.94 1.00 1.32
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐11%‐14%‐18% 78%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 10%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐11%‐11%‐12% 12%
SFR 1.67 1.62 1.55
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 1.61 1.59 1.57
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐3%‐11%‐16% 92%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 1%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐3%‐4% 5%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐2%‐7%‐11% 1%
SFR 1.03 1.16 1.29
MFR 1.00 1.02 0.50
PC 0.99 1.36 1.93
IRR 1.04 1.20 1.38
803
(inc. 860)
978
1200
520
832
944
1090
1296
Page 14 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
Pressure
Zone 2020 2035 2050
2013
% of
Total Use Notes
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐7%‐15% 88%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 10%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐1%‐2%‐8% 1%
SFR 0.98 0.93 1.14
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.99 0.98 1.16
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐7%‐16% 100%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR 0% 0% 0% 0%
SFR 0.98 0.93 1.33
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 1.00 1.00 1.51
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐7%‐13% 100%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR 0% 0% 0% 0%
SFR 0.98 0.93 0.87
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC ‐ ‐ ‐
IRR 1.00 1.00 1.00
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐6%‐10% 29%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 22%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐3%‐4%‐4% 24%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐6%‐8%‐10% 25%
SFR 0.99 0.95 0.90
MFR 1.01 1.00 0.98
PC 2.10 2.65 3.15
IRR 1.30 1.44 1.57
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐6%‐10% 43%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR ‐3%‐4%‐5% 23%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 10%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐3%‐4%‐6% 22%
SFR 0.99 0.95 0.90
MFR 1.24 1.23 1.21
PC 1.29 1.34 1.33
IRR 1.09 1.08 1.07
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐6%‐10% 43%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 19%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 15%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐2%‐4%‐5% 23%
SFR 0.99 0.95 0.91
MFR 1.01 1.01 0.99
PC 1.42 1.41 1.40
IRR 1.06 1.05 1.03
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐5%‐9%‐12% 80%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 8%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐6%‐7%‐8% 12%
SFR 1.30 1.26 1.30
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 1.26 1.25 1.33
1485
1530
1655
340
458
485
580
Page 15 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
Pressure
Zone 2020 2035 2050
2013
% of
Total Use Notes
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐8%‐12% 67%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR ‐6%‐8%‐10% 14%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 6%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐3%‐8%‐9% 12%
SFR 0.99 1.24 1.30
MFR 1.62 1.96 1.92
PC 1.42 1.82 1.98
IRR 1.11 1.37 1.45
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐3%‐6%‐11% 69%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR ‐3%‐8%‐11% 11%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐3%‐4%‐4% 10%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐4%‐6%‐9% 9%
SFR 1.04 0.95 0.95
MFR 1.25 1.89 2.26
PC 1.81 2.36 3.27
IRR 1.13 1.20 1.36
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐3%‐9%‐12% 60%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR ‐8%‐9%‐10% 21%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐3%‐4%‐4% 7%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐7%‐9%‐10% 12%
SFR 1.09 1.26 1.22
MFR 2.14 2.12 2.09
PC 2.19 2.26 2.32
IRR 1.38 1.52 1.53
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐9%‐12%‐14% 70%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐12%‐12%‐12% 30%
SFR 2.24 2.19 2.12
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 2.13 2.12 2.12
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐2%‐15%‐16% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 75%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐4%‐8%‐13% 23%
SFR 1.05 8.51 9.01
MFR ‐ ‐ ‐
PC 1.20 1.45 2.52
IRR 1.17 1.40 2.31
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR 0% 0% 0% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR 0%‐1%‐2% 0%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐1%‐2%‐3% 100%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR 0% 0% 0% 0%
SFR 1.00 1.00 1.00
MFR 1.00 1.00 1.00
PC 1.00 1.00 1.00
IRR 1.00 1.00 1.00
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ SFR ‐3%‐7%‐11% 57%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ MFR ‐4%‐8%‐10% 13%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ PC ‐2%‐3%‐4% 16%
Net Δ Unit Use ‐‐ IRR ‐4%‐7%‐9% 13%
SFR 1.04 1.09 1.11
MFR 1.40 1.77 1.94
PC 1.48 1.72 2.23
IRR 1.15 1.28 1.43
870
(inc. 571)
624
711
980
1100
Total
District
0
For error checking only. Not used in forecast
calculations. (The forecast for Total District is the
sum of the individual SAs or PZs.)
See the Forecast PZ worksheet for the development of
the Otay Mesa MFR component.
Page 16 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
0
OWD DEMAND FORECAST BY PRESSURE ZONE
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
MGD MGD MGD MGD Factor Factor Factor
493 LA PRESA -- SALES
SFR 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.99 0.94 0.88
MFR - - - - - - -
PC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
TEMP - - - -
TOTAL 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 -1% -6% -12%
640 LA PRESA -- SALES
SFR 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.99
MFR 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.24 0.99 0.99 0.83
PC 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.20 1.20 1.29 1.56
IRR 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 1.01 1.02 1.05
TEMP 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
TOTAL 1.43 1.44 1.43 1.45 1% 0% 1%
657 LA PRESA -- SALES
SFR 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.30 1.00 0.95 1.22
MFR 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.94
PC 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.99 1.57 2.90
IRR 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 1.00 1.03 1.34
TEMP 0.00 - - -
TOTAL 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.53 0% 2% 32%
850 LA PRESA -- SALES
SFR 1.15 1.18 1.36 1.48 1.02 1.18 1.29
MFR 0.53 0.49 0.44 0.48 0.94 0.84 0.91
PC 0.33 0.55 0.59 0.59 1.64 1.76 1.75
IRR 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.47 1.10 1.17 1.24
TEMP - 0.01 0.01 0.01 TOTAL 2.39 2.65 2.84 3.03 11% 19% 27%
1004 LA PRESA -- SALES
SFR 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.97 0.94 1.41
MFR - - - - - - -
PC - - - - 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.98 1.47
TEMP - - - -
TOTAL 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 -3% -6% 41%
1050 LA PRESA -- SALES
SFR 0.04 0.044 0.041 0.038 0.99 0.94 0.87
MFR - - - - - - -
PC - - - - 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.99 0.98 0.96
TEMP - - - - TOTAL 0.04 0.044 0.042 0.039 -1% -6% -13%
Page 17 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast PZ
0
OWD DEMAND FORECAST BY PRESSURE ZONE
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
803/860 HILLSDALE -- SALES
SFR 1.23 1.21 1.20 1.18 0.98 0.98 0.96
MFR 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 1.01 1.01 0.99
PC 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.96 0.95 0.94
IRR 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.99 1.01 1.02
TEMP - 0.01 0.01 0.01 TOTAL 1.82 1.80 1.80 1.78 -1% -1% -2%
978 HILLSDALE -- SALES
SFR 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.68 0.99 1.00 0.98
MFR 0.00 - - - - - -
PC 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.99 1.04 1.06
TEMP 0.01 - - -
TOTAL 0.82 0.80 0.81 0.80 -3% -1% -3%
1200 HILLSDALE -- SALES
SFR 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.98 0.94 1.05
MFR - - - - - - -
PC - - - - 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.98 1.13
TEMP - - - - TOTAL 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 -2% -6% 5%
Page 18 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast PZ
0
OWD DEMAND FORECAST BY PRESSURE ZONE
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
520 REGULATORY -- SALES
SFR - - - - - - -
MFR 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 1.01 1.01 0.99
PC 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.12 1.40 1.40 1.39
IRR 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 1.24 1.23 1.21
TEMP - - - - TOTAL 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.21 28% 28% 26%
832 REGULATORY -- SALES
SFR 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.21 1.08 1.02 0.96
MFR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.01 0.98
PC 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 1.33 1.52 1.52
IRR 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 1.10 1.09 1.08
TEMP - - - -
TOTAL 0.28 0.31 0.30 0.29 10% 7% 2%
944 REGULATORY -- SALES
SFR 0.00 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.91 0.92 1.16
MFR - - - - - - -
PC 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR - - - - 0.94 1.00 1.32
TEMP - - - - TOTAL 0.00 0.004 0.004 0.005 -7% -7% 13%
1090 REGULATORY -- SALES
SFR 0.01 0.021 0.020 0.019 1.67 1.62 1.55
MFR - - - - - - -
PC 0.00 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.00 0.003 0.003 0.003 1.61 1.59 1.57
TEMP - - - -
TOTAL 0.02 0.025 0.025 0.024 59% 55% 49%
1296 REGULATORY -- SALES
SFR 0.45 0.47 0.52 0.58 1.03 1.16 1.29
MFR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.02 0.50
PC 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.99 1.36 1.93
IRR 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.04 1.20 1.38
TEMP 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02
TOTAL 0.49 0.52 0.59 0.67 6% 20% 35%
1485 REGULATORY -- SALES
SFR 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.98 0.93 1.14
MFR 0.00 - - - - - -
PC 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.98 1.16
TEMP 0.00 - - -
TOTAL 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.24 -3% -8% 10%
1530 REGULATORY -- SALES
SFR 0.03 0.026 0.025 0.036 0.98 0.93 1.33
MFR - - - - - - -
PC - - - - 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.51
TEMP - - - -
TOTAL 0.03 0.026 0.025 0.036 -2% -7% 33%
1655 REGULATORY -- SALES
SFR 0.02 0.015 0.014 0.013 0.98 0.93 0.87
MFR - - - - - - -
PC - - - - - - -
IRR - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
TEMP - - - - TOTAL 0.02 0.015 0.014 0.013 -2% -7% -13%
Page 19 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast PZ
0
OWD DEMAND FORECAST BY PRESSURE ZONE
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
340 CENTRAL -- SALES
SFR 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.99 0.95 0.90
MFR 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 1.01 1.00 0.98
PC 0.13 0.27 0.35 0.41 2.10 2.65 3.15
IRR 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00
TEMP - TOTAL 0.54 0.68 0.75 0.80 27% 39% 49%
458 CENTRAL -- SALES
SFR 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.37 0.99 0.95 0.90
MFR 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.27 1.24 1.23 1.21
PC 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.13 1.29 1.34 1.33
IRR 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00
TEMP 0.01 - - -
TOTAL 0.94 1.01 1.00 0.97 7% 6% 3%
485 CENTRAL -- SALES
SFR 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.99 0.95 0.91
MFR 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 1.01 1.01 0.99
PC 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.42 1.41 1.40
IRR 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00
TEMP - - - - TOTAL 0.43 0.46 0.45 0.44 6% 4% 2%
580 CENTRAL -- SALES
SFR 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.17 1.30 1.26 1.30
MFR - - - - - - -
PC 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 1.13 1.13 1.17
TEMP - - - -
TOTAL 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.21 26% 22% 26%
624 CENTRAL -- SALES
SFR 1.71 1.69 2.11 2.23 0.99 1.24 1.30
MFR 0.37 0.59 0.72 0.70 1.62 1.96 1.92
PC 0.15 0.21 0.27 0.29 1.42 1.82 1.98
IRR 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00
TEMP 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02
TOTAL 2.53 2.83 3.43 3.56 12% 35% 40%
711 CENTRAL -- SALES
SFR 4.01 4.17 3.79 3.83 1.04 0.95 0.95
MFR 0.66 0.82 1.24 1.49 1.25 1.89 2.26
PC 0.56 1.01 1.32 1.83 1.81 2.36 3.27
IRR 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00
TEMP 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06
TOTAL 5.84 6.60 6.95 7.74 13% 19% 33%
980 CENTRAL -- SALES
SFR 3.06 3.34 3.86 3.75 1.09 1.26 1.22
MFR 1.05 2.25 2.23 2.19 2.14 2.12 2.09
PC 0.35 0.77 0.80 0.82 2.19 2.26 2.32
IRR 0.59 0.71 0.98 1.00 1.20 1.65 1.68
TEMP 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.07
TOTAL 5.08 7.15 7.93 7.84 41% 56% 54%
1100 CENTRAL -- SALES
SFR 0.08 0.19 0.18 0.18 2.24 2.19 2.12
MFR - - - - - - -
PC - - - - 0.99 0.98 0.97
IRR 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 2.13 2.12 2.12
TEMP 0.00 - - - TOTAL 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.25 121% 117% 112%
Page 20 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast PZ
0
OWD DEMAND FORECAST BY PRESSURE ZONE
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
871/570 OTAY MESA -- SALES
SFR 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 1.05 8.51 9.01
MFR - - 0.46 0.71 - 2,787 4,291
PC 2.08 2.50 3.02 5.23 1.20 1.45 2.52
IRR 0.63 0.74 0.89 1.46 1.17 1.40 2.31
TEMP 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.20 TOTAL 2.75 3.45 4.61 7.65 25% 67% 178%
0 UNASSIGNED
SFR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MFR - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
PC 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 1.00 1.00 1.00
IRR - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
TEMP - - - -
TOTAL 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL DISTRICT -- SALES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 15.35 15.92 16.65 16.97 4% 8% 11%
MFR 3.58 5.18 6.11 6.53 45% 71% 83%
PC 4.30 6.13 7.20 10.12 43% 67% 135%
IRR 3.49 3.82 4.27 4.91 9% 22% 41%
TEMP 0.16 0.40 0.40 0.40 144% 144% 144%TOTAL 26.89 31.45 34.63 38.94 17% 29% 45%
Page 21 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast PZ
0
OWD DEMAND FORECAST BY PRESSURE ZONE
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
MGD MGD MGD MGD
NORTH DISTRICT -- SALES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 5.60 5.61 5.78 6.09 0% 3% 9%
MFR 1.08 1.05 0.99 0.97 -3% -8% -10%
PC 0.82 1.09 1.18 1.27 33% 43% 54%
IRR 0.93 0.98 1.02 1.07 6% 10% 15%
TEMP 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 122% 122% 122%
TOTAL 8.46 8.78 9.02 9.45 4% 7% 12%
SOUTH DISTRICT -- SALES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 9.75 10.32 10.87 10.88 6% 11% 12%
MFR 2.50 4.14 5.12 5.56 66% 105% 123%
PC 3.48 5.04 6.02 8.86 45% 73% 155%
IRR 2.56 2.83 3.24 3.84 11% 27% 50%
TEMP 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.35 147% 147% 147%
TOTAL 18.43 22.67 25.61 29.49 23% 39% 60%
TOTAL DISTRICT -- SALES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 15.35 15.92 16.65 16.97 4% 8% 11%
MFR 3.58 5.18 6.11 6.53 45% 71% 83%
PC 4.30 6.13 7.20 10.12 43% 67% 135%
IRR 3.49 3.82 4.27 4.91 9% 22% 41%
TEMP 0.16 0.40 0.40 0.40 144% 144% 144%
TOTAL 26.89 31.45 34.63 38.94 17% 29% 45%
NORTH DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES 5.0% % Change vs. 2013
SFR 5.88 5.89 6.07 6.39 0% 3% 9%
MFR 1.13 1.10 1.04 1.02 -3% -8% -10%
PC 0.86 1.15 1.24 1.33 33% 43% 54%
IRR 0.98 1.03 1.08 1.12 6% 10% 15%
TEMP 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 122% 122% 122%
TOTAL 8.88 9.22 9.48 9.92 4% 7% 12%
SOUTH DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES 5.0% % Change vs. 2013
SFR 10.24 10.83 11.41 11.43 6% 11% 12%
MFR 2.62 4.34 5.38 5.84 66% 105% 123%
PC 3.65 5.29 6.32 9.30 45% 73% 155%
IRR 2.69 2.97 3.40 4.03 11% 27% 50%
TEMP 0.15 0.37 0.37 0.37 147% 147% 147%
TOTAL 19.35 23.81 26.89 30.97 23% 39% 60%
TOTAL DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES % Change vs. 2013
SFR 16.12 16.72 17.48 17.82 4% 8% 11%
MFR 3.76 5.44 6.42 6.86 45% 71% 83%
PC 4.51 6.44 7.56 10.63 43% 67% 135%
IRR 3.67 4.01 4.48 5.16 9% 22% 41%
TEMP 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.42 144% 144% 144%
TOTAL 28.23 33.03 36.36 40.89 17% 29% 45%
Page 22 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast PZ
0
OWD DEMAND FORECAST BY PRESSURE ZONE
Calendar Year 2013 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
NORTH DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES (AF/yr)% Change vs. 2013
SFR 6,590 6,600 6,810 7,170 0% 3% 9%
MFR 1,270 1,230 1,170 1,150 -3% -8% -9%
PC 970 1,290 1,380 1,490 33% 42% 54%
IRR 1,100 1,160 1,210 1,260 5% 10% 15%
TEMP 30 60 60 60 100% 100% 100%
TOTAL 10,000 10,300 10,600 11,100 3% 6% 11%
SOUTH DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES (AF/yr)% Change vs. 2013
SFR 11,480 12,140 12,790 12,810 6% 11% 12%
MFR 2,940 4,870 6,030 6,550 66% 105% 123%
PC 4,090 5,930 7,090 10,420 45% 73% 155%
IRR 3,020 3,330 3,820 4,520 10% 26% 50%
TEMP 170 410 410 410 141% 141% 141%
TOTAL 21,700 26,700 30,100 34,700 23% 39% 60%
TOTAL DISTRICT -- DELIVERIES (AF/yr)% Change vs. 2013
SFR 18,070 18,740 19,600 19,980 4% 8% 11%
MFR 4,210 6,100 7,200 7,690 45% 71% 83%
PC 5,060 7,220 8,470 11,920 43% 67% 136%
IRR 4,110 4,490 5,020 5,780 9% 22% 41%
TEMP 190 470 470 470 147% 147% 147%
TOTAL 31,600 37,000 40,800 45,800 17% 29% 45%
GPCD (Deliveries)% Change vs. 2013
Employment 46,679 70,873 82,815 108,543 52% 77% 133%
Population 205,193 245,011 284,279 307,877 19% 39% 50%
GPCD 138 135 128 133 SB7 2020 target = 152
Deliveries
@ SB7 35,000 41,700 48,400 52,500
GPCD
Page 23 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast PZ
0
OWD POTABLE DEMAND FORECAST RANGE (DELIVERIES, AF/yr)
% Change vs. 2013
2016 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
North 10,200 10,100 10,000 10,100 1% 0% 1%
South 23,000 25,300 27,700 30,800 17% 28% 42%
TOTAL 33,200 35,400 37,700 40,900 12% 19% 29%
Base Demand: 2013 AOI: Included Conservation: x 1.5
Growth Rate: Reduced 20%
North 10,200 10,300 10,600 11,100 3% 6% 11%
South 23,000 26,700 30,100 34,700 23% 39% 60%
TOTAL 33,200 37,000 40,700 45,800 17% 28% 44%
Base Demand: 2013 AOI: Included Conservation: x 1.0
Growth Rate: Growth per SANDAG S.13
North 10,200 12,400 13,100 14,000 24% 31% 40%
South 23,000 28,200 32,300 37,100 30% 49% 71%
TOTAL 33,200 40,600 45,400 51,100 28% 43% 61%
Base Demand: 2008 (High) AOI: Included Conservation: x 0.5
Growth Rate: Growth per SANDAG S.13
North
South
TOTAL 41,700 48,400 52,400 32% 53% 65%
Base Demand: n/a AOI: Included Conservation: n/a
Other: Water use set at SB7 2020 Target Rate of 152 gpcd.
North
South
TOTAL 43,900 49,400 62,000 56% 96% -100%
2050 is WRMP Ultimate; 2014 is WRMP 2016 scaled down; intermediate points scaled.
Also, WRMP numbers are SALES. Data entries here are scaled up 5% to reflect DELIVERIES.
2,020 2,025 2,030 2,035 2,040
Purchased or Im 37,050 42,530 44,891 45,501 51,082
Population 243,845 255,040 257,278 277,429 ######
per capita 136 149 156 146 160
2015 UWMP
LOW
MEDIAN
HIGH
SB7
2008 WRMP
Page 24 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Forecast Range
OWD Historical and Projected Potable Water Deliveries (AF/yr)0
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
De
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
in
AF
/
y
r
Calendar Year
2008 WRMP
SB‐7 Target Maximum
Projected HIGH
Projected MEDIAN
Projected LOW
Historical Deliveries
Page 25 of 43 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Chart
APPENDIX C
Population, Employment
and Development Forecasting
This page is intentionally left blank
C‐1
SANDAG Series 13 Growth Forecast by Pressure Zone, Adjusted 0
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 1,623 1,623 ‐ 478 478 ‐ ‐ 70 3.40
2020 1,643 1,643 ‐ 478 478 ‐ ‐ 70 3.44
2035 1,644 1,644 ‐ 478 478 ‐ ‐ 70 3.44
2050 1,623 1,623 ‐ 479 479 ‐ ‐ 70 3.39
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2050 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00
2012 18,048 17,917 131 5,491 4,408 952 131 2,109 3.26
2020 18,074 17,975 99 5,520 4,437 952 131 2,567 3.26
2035 18,622 18,469 153 5,653 4,570 952 131 2,800 3.27
2050 19,397 19,207 190 5,943 4,996 816 131 3,414 3.23
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.22 1.00
*2035 1.03 1.03 1.17 1.03 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.00
*2050 1.07 1.07 1.45 1.08 1.13 0.86 1.00 1.62 0.99
2012 4,217 4,101 116 1,325 1,060 85 180 281 3.10
2020 4,303 4,192 111 1,347 1,082 85 180 281 3.11
2035 4,341 4,215 126 1,347 1,082 85 180 455 3.13
2050 5,378 5,364 14 1,771 1,507 84 180 852 3.03
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 0.96 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.03 1.03 1.09 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.62 1.01
*2050 1.28 1.31 0.12 1.34 1.42 0.99 1.00 3.03 0.98
2012 17,906 17,874 32 6,938 3,716 2,621 601 3,173 2.58
2020 18,010 17,984 26 7,029 3,936 2,492 601 5,341 2.56
2035 19,870 19,830 40 7,561 4,763 2,197 601 5,762 2.62
2050 22,447 22,396 51 8,284 5,352 2,331 601 5,789 2.70
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 0.81 1.01 1.06 0.95 1.00 1.68 0.99
*2035 1.11 1.11 1.25 1.09 1.28 0.84 1.00 1.82 1.02
*2050 1.25 1.25 1.59 1.19 1.44 0.89 1.00 1.82 1.05
2012 954 954 ‐ 301 301 ‐ ‐ 78 3.17
2020 935 935 ‐ 301 301 ‐ ‐ 78 3.11
2035 965 965 ‐ 304 304 ‐ ‐ 78 3.17
2050 1,544 1,544 ‐ 501 501 ‐ ‐ 78 3.08
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
*2035 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.01 1.01 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00
*2050 1.62 1.62 ‐ 1.66 1.66 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.97
2012 466 466 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 27 3.30
2020 472 472 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 27 3.35
2035 472 472 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 27 3.35
2050 457 457 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 27 3.24
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2050 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
640
850
657
1004
1050
North
Service Area
‐‐ La Presa
493
Page 1 of 4 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
C‐1
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 10,336 10,302 34 3,628 2,753 774 101 4,017 2.84
2020 10,525 10,499 26 3,634 2,760 773 101 3,886 2.89
2035 11,047 11,005 42 3,797 2,922 774 101 3,890 2.90
2050 11,364 11,312 52 3,924 3,050 773 101 3,890 2.88
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
*2035 1.07 1.07 1.24 1.05 1.06 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
*2050 1.10 1.10 1.53 1.08 1.11 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
2012 3,011 3,011 ‐ 1,049 1,049 ‐ ‐ 544 2.87
2020 3,076 3,076 ‐ 1,054 1,054 ‐ ‐ 544 2.92
2035 3,368 3,368 ‐ 1,140 1,140 ‐ ‐ 544 2.95
2050 3,473 3,473 ‐ 1,190 1,190 ‐ ‐ 544 2.92
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.12 1.12 ‐ 1.09 1.09 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.03
*2050 1.15 1.15 ‐ 1.13 1.13 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
2012 418 418 ‐ 140 140 ‐ ‐ 56 2.99
2020 426 426 ‐ 140 140 ‐ ‐ 56 3.04
2035 430 430 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 56 3.05
2050 521 521 ‐ 171 171 ‐ ‐ 56 3.05
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.03 1.03 ‐ 1.01 1.01 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2050 1.25 1.25 ‐ 1.22 1.22 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
2012 522 522 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 783 2.16
2020 528 528 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 1,125 2.18
2035 534 534 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 1,129 2.21
2050 528 528 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 1,129 2.18
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.44 1.01
*2035 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.44 1.02
*2050 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.44 1.01
2012 1,468 1,451 17 444 443 1 ‐ 250 3.27
2020 1,665 1,653 12 495 494 1 ‐ 339 3.34
2035 1,656 1,642 14 492 491 1 ‐ 391 3.34
2050 1,632 1,616 16 492 491 1 ‐ 395 3.28
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.13 1.14 0.71 1.11 1.12 1.00 ‐ 1.36 1.02
*2035 1.13 1.13 0.82 1.11 1.11 1.00 ‐ 1.56 1.02
*2050 1.11 1.11 0.94 1.11 1.11 1.00 ‐ 1.58 1.01
2012 47 47 ‐ 13 13 ‐ ‐ 5 3.62
2020 43 43 ‐ 12 12 ‐ ‐ 5 3.58
2035 46 46 ‐ 13 13 ‐ ‐ 5 3.54
2050 64 64 ‐ 18 18 ‐ ‐ 5 3.56
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 0.91 0.91 ‐ 0.92 0.92 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.99
*2035 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
*2050 1.36 1.36 ‐ 1.38 1.38 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
2012 97 97 ‐ 29 29 ‐ ‐ 13 3.34
2020 180 180 ‐ 55 55 ‐ ‐ 13 3.27
2035 182 182 ‐ 55 55 ‐ ‐ 13 3.31
2050 180 180 ‐ 55 55 ‐ ‐ 13 3.27
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.86 1.86 ‐ 1.90 1.90 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
*2035 1.88 1.88 ‐ 1.90 1.90 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.99
*2050 1.86 1.86 ‐ 1.90 1.90 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.98
2012 3,036 3,028 8 1,011 991 2 18 790 3.00
2020 3,239 3,237 2 1,071 1,051 2 18 790 3.02
2035 3,989 3,980 9 1,290 1,270 2 18 1,106 3.09
2050 4,654 4,639 15 1,514 1,511 1 2 1,592 3.06
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.07 1.07 0.25 1.06 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.31 1.31 1.13 1.28 1.28 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.03
*2050 1.53 1.53 1.88 1.50 1.52 0.50 0.11 2.02 1.02
North
Service Area
‐‐ Hillsdale
803
(inc. 860)
978
1200
1090
1296
North
Service Area
‐‐ Regulatory
944
520
832
Page 2 of 4 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
C‐1
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 1,196 1,196 ‐ 408 408 ‐ ‐ 366 2.93
2020 1,218 1,218 ‐ 408 408 ‐ ‐ 366 2.99
2035 1,224 1,224 ‐ 408 408 ‐ ‐ 366 3.00
2050 1,698 1,698 ‐ 528 528 ‐ ‐ 366 3.22
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2050 1.42 1.42 ‐ 1.29 1.29 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.10
2012 107 107 ‐ 37 37 ‐ ‐ 15 2.89
2020 109 109 ‐ 37 37 ‐ ‐ 15 2.95
2035 110 110 ‐ 37 37 ‐ ‐ 15 2.97
2050 183 183 ‐ 56 56 ‐ ‐ 15 3.27
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.03 1.03 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.03
*2050 1.71 1.71 ‐ 1.51 1.51 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.13
2012 57 57 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.85
2020 58 58 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.90
2035 58 58 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.90
2050 57 57 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.85
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.02
*2035 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.02
*2050 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.00
2012 5,223 5,199 24 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 1,653 3.60
2020 5,289 5,268 21 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 3,584 3.65
2035 5,309 5,275 34 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 4,551 3.65
2050 5,267 5,224 43 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 5,446 3.62
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.01 1.01 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 2.17 1.01
*2035 1.02 1.01 1.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 2.75 1.01
*2050 1.01 1.00 1.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 3.29 1.00
2012 8,215 8,188 27 2,317 1,911 406 ‐ 939 3.53
2020 8,706 8,687 19 2,421 1,911 510 ‐ 1,239 3.59
2035 8,755 8,717 38 2,421 1,911 510 ‐ 1,299 3.60
2050 8,714 8,664 50 2,425 1,911 514 ‐ 1,299 3.57
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.06 1.06 0.70 1.04 1.00 1.26 ‐ 1.32 1.02
*2035 1.07 1.06 1.41 1.04 1.00 1.26 ‐ 1.38 1.02
*2050 1.06 1.06 1.85 1.05 1.00 1.27 ‐ 1.38 1.01
2012 3,643 3,636 7 1,268 628 640 ‐ 686 2.87
2020 3,698 3,693 5 1,268 628 640 ‐ 999 2.91
2035 3,718 3,707 11 1,268 628 640 ‐ 999 2.92
2050 3,703 3,689 14 1,268 628 640 ‐ 999 2.91
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.02 1.02 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.46 1.02
*2035 1.02 1.02 1.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.46 1.02
*2050 1.02 1.01 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.46 1.01
2012 985 985 ‐ 262 262 ‐ ‐ 57 3.76
2020 1,359 1,359 ‐ 358 358 ‐ ‐ 57 3.80
2035 1,362 1,362 ‐ 358 358 ‐ ‐ 57 3.80
2050 1,457 1,457 ‐ 393 393 ‐ ‐ 57 3.71
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.38 1.38 ‐ 1.37 1.37 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.38 1.38 ‐ 1.37 1.37 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2050 1.48 1.48 ‐ 1.50 1.50 ‐ ‐ 1.00 0.99
Central
Service Area
1485
1530
1655
340
458
485
580
Page 3 of 4 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
C‐1
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 19,314 19,314 ‐ 5,956 4,454 1,502 ‐ 3,476 3.24
2020 23,065 23,065 ‐ 6,992 4,455 2,537 ‐ 5,048 3.30
2035 30,181 30,181 ‐ 8,989 5,879 3,110 ‐ 6,560 3.36
2050 32,076 32,076 ‐ 9,624 6,516 3,108 ‐ 7,185 3.33
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.19 1.19 ‐ 1.17 1.00 1.69 ‐ 1.45 1.02
*2035 1.56 1.56 ‐ 1.51 1.32 2.07 ‐ 1.89 1.04
*2050 1.66 1.66 ‐ 1.62 1.46 2.07 ‐ 2.07 1.03
2012 55,090 55,046 44 16,793 12,154 4,442 197 6,389 3.28
2020 62,325 62,292 33 18,732 12,872 5,663 197 11,887 3.33
2035 71,106 71,055 51 21,211 12,077 8,937 197 15,686 3.35
2050 80,384 80,318 66 24,173 12,867 11,109 197 21,884 3.32
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.13 1.13 0.75 1.12 1.06 1.27 1.00 1.86 1.01
*2035 1.29 1.29 1.16 1.26 0.99 2.01 1.00 2.46 1.02
*2050 1.46 1.46 1.50 1.44 1.06 2.50 1.00 3.43 1.01
2012 42,536 42,536 ‐ 12,584 9,127 3,457 ‐ 6,717 3.38
2020 62,051 62,051 ‐ 18,211 10,252 7,958 ‐ 15,184 3.41
2035 69,941 69,941 ‐ 20,516 12,515 8,001 ‐ 15,757 3.41
2050 70,145 70,145 ‐ 20,862 12,753 8,109 ‐ 16,283 3.36
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.46 1.46 ‐ 1.45 1.12 2.30 ‐ 2.26 1.01
*2035 1.64 1.64 ‐ 1.63 1.37 2.31 ‐ 2.35 1.01
*2050 1.65 1.65 ‐ 1.66 1.40 2.35 ‐ 2.42 0.99
2012 482 482 ‐ 117 117 ‐ ‐ 91 4.12
2020 1,207 1,207 ‐ 283 283 ‐ ‐ 91 4.27
2035 1,214 1,214 ‐ 283 283 ‐ ‐ 91 4.29
2050 1,202 1,202 ‐ 283 283 ‐ ‐ 91 4.25
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 2.50 2.50 ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.04
*2035 2.52 2.52 ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.04
*2050 2.49 2.49 ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.03
2012 6,196 122 6,074 25 23 ‐ ‐ 14,094 4.88
2020 12,807 124 12,683 24 24 ‐ ‐ 17,281 5.17
2035 24,135 11,412 12,723 3,054 267 ‐ ‐ 21,108 3.74
2050 29,729 16,978 12,751 4,580 289 ‐ ‐ 37,064 3.71
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 2.07 1.02 2.09 0.96 1.04 ‐ ‐ 1.23 1.06
*2035 3.90 93.54 2.09 122.16 11.61 ‐ ‐ 1.50 0.77
*2050 4.80 139.16 2.10 183.20 12.57 ‐ ‐ 2.63 0.76
2012 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2020 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2035 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2050 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
*2035 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
*2050 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2012 205,193 198,679 6,514 62,461 45,879 15,352 1,228 46,679 3.18
2020 245,011 231,974 13,037 71,717 48,405 22,083 1,228 70,873 3.23
2035 284,279 271,038 13,241 82,663 52,969 28,466 1,228 82,815 3.28
2050 307,877 294,615 13,262 90,381 56,922 32,247 1,212 108,543 3.26
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf)
*2020 1.19 1.17 2.00 1.15 1.06 1.44 1.00 1.52 1.02
*2035 1.39 1.36 2.03 1.32 1.15 1.85 1.00 1.77 1.03
*2050 1.50 1.48 2.04 1.45 1.24 2.10 0.99 2.33 1.02
Unassigned 0
Total District
711
980
1100
Otay Mesa
Service Area
870
(inc. 571)
Central
Service Area
624
Page 4 of 4 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
C‐2
SANDAG Series 13 Growth Forecast, by Pressure Zone (Original Data)
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units SF Households MH Households
Mobile Home
Households
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 1,623 1,623 ‐ 478 478 ‐ ‐ 460 460 ‐ 70 3.40
2020 1,643 1,643 ‐ 478 478 ‐ ‐ 458 458 ‐ 70 3.44
2035 1,644 1,644 ‐ 478 478 ‐ ‐ 457 457 ‐ 70 3.44
2050 1,623 1,623 ‐ 479 479 ‐ ‐ 451 451 ‐ 70 3.39
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 0.99 0.99 ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2050 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00
2012 18,048 17,917 131 5,491 4,408 952 131 5,277 4,228 942 2,109 3.26
2020 18,074 17,975 99 5,520 4,437 952 131 5,217 4,195 913 2,567 3.26
2035 18,622 18,469 153 5,653 4,570 952 131 5,342 4,315 911 2,800 3.27
2050 19,397 19,207 190 5,943 4,996 816 131 5,677 4,769 784 3,414 3.23
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 1.22 1.00
*2035 1.03 1.03 1.17 1.03 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02 0.97 1.33 1.00
*2050 1.07 1.07 1.45 1.08 1.13 0.86 1.00 1.08 1.13 0.83 1.62 0.99
2012 4,217 4,101 116 1,325 1,060 85 180 1,250 986 85 281 3.10
2020 4,303 4,192 111 1,347 1,082 85 180 1,261 1,018 63 281 3.11
2035 4,341 4,215 126 1,347 1,082 85 180 1,262 1,021 61 455 3.13
2050 5,378 5,364 14 1,771 1,507 84 180 1,602 1,387 44 852 3.03
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.02 1.02 0.96 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.03 0.74 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.03 1.03 1.09 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.04 0.72 1.62 1.01
*2050 1.28 1.31 0.12 1.34 1.42 0.99 1.00 1.28 1.41 0.52 3.03 0.98
2012 17,906 17,874 32 6,938 3,716 2,621 601 6,629 3,563 2,500 3,173 2.58
2020 18,010 17,984 26 7,029 3,936 2,492 601 6,555 3,711 2,282 5,341 2.56
2035 19,870 19,830 40 7,561 4,763 2,197 601 7,109 4,543 2,006 5,762 2.62
2050 22,447 22,396 51 8,284 5,352 2,331 601 8,005 5,251 2,192 5,789 2.70
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.01 1.01 0.81 1.01 1.06 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.04 0.91 1.68 0.99
*2035 1.11 1.11 1.25 1.09 1.28 0.84 1.00 1.07 1.28 0.80 1.82 1.02
*2050 1.25 1.25 1.59 1.19 1.44 0.89 1.00 1.21 1.47 0.88 1.82 1.05
2012 954 954 ‐ 301 301 ‐ ‐ 282 282 ‐ 78 3.17
2020 935 935 ‐ 301 301 ‐ ‐ 272 272 ‐ 78 3.11
2035 965 965 ‐ 304 304 ‐ ‐ 277 277 ‐ 78 3.17
2050 1,544 1,544 ‐ 501 501 ‐ ‐ 444 444 ‐ 78 3.08
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 0.96 0.96 ‐ 1.00 0.98
North
Service Area
‐‐ La Presa
493
850
657
1004
640
Page 1 of 6 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
C‐2
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units SF Households MH Households
Mobile Home
Households
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
*2035 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.01 1.01 ‐ ‐ 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00
*2050 1.62 1.62 ‐ 1.66 1.66 ‐ ‐ 1.57 1.57 ‐ 1.00 0.97
2012 466 466 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 129 129 ‐ 27 3.30
2020 472 472 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 128 128 ‐ 27 3.35
2035 472 472 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 128 128 ‐ 27 3.35
2050 457 457 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 125 125 ‐ 27 3.24
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 0.99 0.99 ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 0.99 0.99 ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2050 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 0.97 0.97 ‐ 1.00 0.98
2012 10,336 10,302 34 3,628 2,753 774 101 3,561 2,721 738 4,017 2.84
2020 10,525 10,499 26 3,634 2,760 773 101 3,564 2,725 737 3,886 2.89
2035 11,047 11,005 42 3,797 2,922 774 101 3,729 2,886 743 3,890 2.90
2050 11,364 11,312 52 3,924 3,050 773 101 3,849 3,011 740 3,890 2.88
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.02 1.02 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.02
*2035 1.07 1.07 1.24 1.05 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.06 1.01 0.97 1.02
*2050 1.10 1.10 1.53 1.08 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.11 1.00 0.97 1.02
2012 3,011 3,011 ‐ 1,049 1,049 ‐ ‐ 1,027 1,027 ‐ 544 2.87
2020 3,076 3,076 ‐ 1,054 1,054 ‐ ‐ 1,029 1,029 ‐ 544 2.92
2035 3,368 3,368 ‐ 1,140 1,140 ‐ ‐ 1,128 1,128 ‐ 544 2.95
2050 3,473 3,473 ‐ 1,190 1,190 ‐ ‐ 1,169 1,169 ‐ 544 2.92
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.12 1.12 ‐ 1.09 1.09 ‐ ‐ 1.10 1.10 ‐ 1.00 1.03
*2050 1.15 1.15 ‐ 1.13 1.13 ‐ ‐ 1.14 1.14 ‐ 1.00 1.02
2012 418 418 ‐ 140 140 ‐ ‐ 140 140 ‐ 56 2.99
2020 426 426 ‐ 140 140 ‐ ‐ 140 140 ‐ 56 3.04
2035 430 430 ‐ 141 141 ‐ ‐ 141 141 ‐ 56 3.05
2050 521 521 ‐ 171 171 ‐ ‐ 170 170 ‐ 56 3.05
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.03 1.03 ‐ 1.01 1.01 ‐ ‐ 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2050 1.25 1.25 ‐ 1.22 1.22 ‐ ‐ 1.21 1.21 ‐ 1.00 1.02
2012 522 522 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 783 2.16
2020 528 528 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 240 ‐ 240 1,125 2.18
2035 534 534 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 1,129 2.21
2050 528 528 ‐ 242 ‐ 242 ‐ 240 ‐ 240 1,129 2.18
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 0.99 ‐ 0.99 1.44 1.01
*2035 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.44 1.02
North
Service Area
‐‐ Hillsdale
978
1200
520
1050
803
(inc. 860)
Page 2 of 6 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
C‐2
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units SF Households MH Households
Mobile Home
Households
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
*2050 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 0.99 ‐ 0.99 1.44 1.01
2012 1,468 1,451 17 444 443 1 ‐ 440 439 1 250 3.27
2020 1,665 1,653 12 495 494 1 ‐ 491 490 1 339 3.34
2035 1,656 1,642 14 492 491 1 ‐ 488 487 1 391 3.34
2050 1,632 1,616 16 492 491 1 ‐ 477 477 1 395 3.28
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.13 1.14 0.71 1.11 1.12 1.00 ‐ 1.12 1.12 1.00 1.36 1.02
*2035 1.13 1.13 0.82 1.11 1.11 1.00 ‐ 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.56 1.02
*2050 1.11 1.11 0.94 1.11 1.11 1.00 ‐ 1.08 1.09 1.00 1.58 1.01
2012 47 47 ‐ 13 13 ‐ ‐ 13 13 ‐ 5 3.62
2020 43 43 ‐ 12 12 ‐ ‐ 12 12 ‐ 5 3.58
2035 46 46 ‐ 13 13 ‐ ‐ 13 13 ‐ 5 3.54
2050 64 64 ‐ 18 18 ‐ ‐ 18 18 ‐ 5 3.56
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 0.91 0.91 ‐ 0.92 0.92 ‐ ‐ 0.92 0.92 ‐ 1.00 0.99
*2035 0.98 0.98 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 0.98
*2050 1.36 1.36 ‐ 1.38 1.38 ‐ ‐ 1.38 1.38 ‐ 1.00 0.98
2012 97 97 ‐ 29 29 ‐ ‐ 29 29 ‐ 13 3.34
2020 180 180 ‐ 55 55 ‐ ‐ 54 54 ‐ 13 3.27
2035 182 182 ‐ 55 55 ‐ ‐ 54 54 ‐ 13 3.31
2050 180 180 ‐ 55 55 ‐ ‐ 54 54 ‐ 13 3.27
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.86 1.86 ‐ 1.90 1.90 ‐ ‐ 1.86 1.86 ‐ 1.00 0.98
*2035 1.88 1.88 ‐ 1.90 1.90 ‐ ‐ 1.86 1.86 ‐ 1.00 0.99
*2050 1.86 1.86 ‐ 1.90 1.90 ‐ ‐ 1.86 1.86 ‐ 1.00 0.98
2012 3,036 3,028 8 1,011 991 2 18 980 960 2 790 3.00
2020 3,239 3,237 2 1,071 1,051 2 18 1,034 1,015 2 790 3.02
2035 3,989 3,980 9 1,290 1,270 2 18 1,256 1,237 2 1,106 3.09
2050 4,654 4,639 15 1,514 1,511 1 2 1,467 1,465 1 1,592 3.06
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.07 1.07 0.25 1.06 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.31 1.31 1.13 1.28 1.28 1.00 1.00 1.28 1.29 1.00 1.40 1.03
*2050 1.53 1.53 1.88 1.50 1.52 0.50 0.11 1.50 1.53 0.50 2.02 1.02
2012 1,196 1,196 ‐ 408 408 ‐ ‐ 371 371 ‐ 366 2.93
2020 1,218 1,218 ‐ 408 408 ‐ ‐ 371 371 ‐ 366 2.99
2035 1,224 1,224 ‐ 408 408 ‐ ‐ 373 373 ‐ 366 3.00
2050 1,698 1,698 ‐ 528 528 ‐ ‐ 514 514 ‐ 366 3.22
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.01 1.01 ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2050 1.42 1.42 ‐ 1.29 1.29 ‐ ‐ 1.39 1.39 ‐ 1.00 1.10
944
1090
1296
832
North
Service Area
‐‐ Regulatory
1485
Page 3 of 6 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
C‐2
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units SF Households MH Households
Mobile Home
Households
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 107 107 ‐ 37 37 ‐ ‐ 33 33 ‐ 15 2.89
2020 109 109 ‐ 37 37 ‐ ‐ 33 33 ‐ 15 2.95
2035 110 110 ‐ 37 37 ‐ ‐ 33 33 ‐ 15 2.97
2050 183 183 ‐ 56 56 ‐ ‐ 55 55 ‐ 15 3.27
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.02
*2035 1.03 1.03 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.03
*2050 1.71 1.71 ‐ 1.51 1.51 ‐ ‐ 1.67 1.67 ‐ 1.00 1.13
2012 57 57 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ 2.85
2020 58 58 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ 2.90
2035 58 58 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ 2.90
2050 57 57 ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ 20 20 ‐ ‐ 2.85
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.02
*2035 1.02 1.02 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.02
*2050 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00
2012 5,223 5,199 24 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 1,414 1,188 227 1,653 3.60
2020 5,289 5,268 21 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 1,412 1,186 227 3,584 3.65
2035 5,309 5,275 34 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 1,411 1,187 224 4,551 3.65
2050 5,267 5,224 43 1,444 1,216 228 ‐ 1,405 1,183 222 5,446 3.62
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.01 1.01 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.17 1.01
*2035 1.02 1.01 1.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 0.99 2.75 1.01
*2050 1.01 1.00 1.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 0.99 1.00 0.98 3.29 1.00
2012 8,215 8,188 27 2,317 1,911 406 ‐ 2,249 1,845 404 939 3.53
2020 8,706 8,687 19 2,421 1,911 510 ‐ 2,350 1,842 508 1,239 3.59
2035 8,755 8,717 38 2,421 1,911 510 ‐ 2,353 1,849 504 1,299 3.60
2050 8,714 8,664 50 2,425 1,911 514 ‐ 2,351 1,844 507 1,299 3.57
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.06 1.06 0.70 1.04 1.00 1.26 ‐ 1.04 1.00 1.26 1.32 1.02
*2035 1.07 1.06 1.41 1.04 1.00 1.26 ‐ 1.05 1.00 1.25 1.38 1.02
*2050 1.06 1.06 1.85 1.05 1.00 1.27 ‐ 1.05 1.00 1.25 1.38 1.01
2012 3,643 3,636 7 1,268 628 640 ‐ 1,224 590 634 686 2.87
2020 3,698 3,693 5 1,268 628 640 ‐ 1,222 588 634 999 2.91
2035 3,718 3,707 11 1,268 628 640 ‐ 1,225 590 635 999 2.92
2050 3,703 3,689 14 1,268 628 640 ‐ 1,223 588 635 999 2.91
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.02 1.02 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.46 1.02
*2035 1.02 1.02 1.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.46 1.02
*2050 1.02 1.01 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.46 1.01
340
458
485
1530
1655
Page 4 of 6 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
C‐2
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units SF Households MH Households
Mobile Home
Households
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 985 985 ‐ 262 262 ‐ ‐ 262 262 ‐ 57 3.76
2020 1,359 1,359 ‐ 358 358 ‐ ‐ 355 355 ‐ 57 3.80
2035 1,362 1,362 ‐ 358 358 ‐ ‐ 355 355 ‐ 57 3.80
2050 1,457 1,457 ‐ 393 393 ‐ ‐ 386 386 ‐ 57 3.71
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.38 1.38 ‐ 1.37 1.37 ‐ ‐ 1.35 1.35 ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2035 1.38 1.38 ‐ 1.37 1.37 ‐ ‐ 1.35 1.35 ‐ 1.00 1.01
*2050 1.48 1.48 ‐ 1.50 1.50 ‐ ‐ 1.47 1.47 ‐ 1.00 0.99
2012 19,314 19,314 ‐ 5,956 4,454 1,502 ‐ 5,740 4,339 1,401 3,476 3.24
2020 23,065 23,065 ‐ 6,992 4,455 2,537 ‐ 6,727 4,331 2,396 5,048 3.30
2035 30,181 30,181 ‐ 8,989 5,879 3,110 ‐ 8,764 5,741 3,022 6,560 3.36
2050 32,076 32,076 ‐ 9,624 6,516 3,108 ‐ 9,348 6,337 3,012 7,185 3.33
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.19 1.19 ‐ 1.17 1.00 1.69 ‐ 1.17 1.00 1.71 1.45 1.02
*2035 1.56 1.56 ‐ 1.51 1.32 2.07 ‐ 1.53 1.32 2.16 1.89 1.04
*2050 1.66 1.66 ‐ 1.62 1.46 2.07 ‐ 1.63 1.46 2.15 2.07 1.03
2012 55,090 55,046 44 16,793 12,154 4,442 197 16,463 11,924 4,343 6,389 3.28
2020 62,325 62,292 33 18,732 12,872 5,663 197 18,301 12,593 5,511 11,887 3.33
2035 71,106 71,055 51 21,211 12,077 8,937 197 20,748 11,829 8,722 15,686 3.35
2050 80,384 80,318 66 24,173 12,867 11,109 197 23,557 12,539 10,825 21,884 3.32
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.13 1.13 0.75 1.12 1.06 1.27 1.00 1.11 1.06 1.27 1.86 1.01
*2035 1.29 1.29 1.16 1.26 0.99 2.01 1.00 1.26 0.99 2.01 2.46 1.02
*2050 1.46 1.46 1.50 1.44 1.06 2.50 1.00 1.43 1.05 2.49 3.43 1.01
2012 42,536 42,536 ‐ 12,584 9,127 3,457 ‐ 12,252 8,955 3,297 6,717 3.38
2020 62,051 62,051 ‐ 18,211 10,252 7,958 ‐ 17,135 9,498 7,637 15,184 3.41
2035 69,941 69,941 ‐ 20,516 12,515 8,001 ‐ 17,830 10,162 7,668 15,757 3.41
2050 70,145 70,145 ‐ 20,862 12,753 8,109 ‐ 18,016 10,314 7,703 16,283 3.36
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 1.46 1.46 ‐ 1.45 1.12 2.30 ‐ 1.40 1.06 2.32 2.26 1.01
*2035 1.64 1.64 ‐ 1.63 1.37 2.31 ‐ 1.46 1.13 2.33 2.35 1.01
*2050 1.65 1.65 ‐ 1.66 1.40 2.35 ‐ 1.47 1.15 2.34 2.42 0.99
2012 482 482 ‐ 117 117 ‐ ‐ 117 117 ‐ 91 4.12
2020 1,207 1,207 ‐ 283 283 ‐ ‐ 282 282 ‐ 91 4.27
2035 1,214 1,214 ‐ 283 283 ‐ ‐ 283 283 ‐ 91 4.29
2050 1,202 1,202 ‐ 283 283 ‐ ‐ 282 282 ‐ 91 4.25
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 2.50 2.50 ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ ‐ 2.41 2.41 ‐ 1.00 1.04
*2035 2.52 2.52 ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ 1.00 1.04
*2050 2.49 2.49 ‐ 2.42 2.42 ‐ ‐ 2.41 2.41 ‐ 1.00 1.03
Central
Service Area
980
1100
580
624
711
Page 5 of 6 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
C‐2
Service Area
Pressure
Zone Year Total Pop HH Pop GQ Pop
Total
Housing
Units
SFR
Units
MFR
Units
Mobile
Home
Units SF Households MH Households
Mobile Home
Households
Total
Employment
PPH
(HH pop)
2012 6,196 122 6,074 25 23 ‐ ‐ 25 23 ‐ 14,094 4.88
2020 12,807 124 12,683 24 24 ‐ ‐ 22 22 ‐ 17,281 5.17
2035 24,135 11,412 12,723 3,054 267 2,787 ‐ 2,981 261 2,720 21,108 3.74
2050 29,729 16,978 12,751 4,580 289 4,291 ‐ 4,475 277 4,198 37,064 3.71
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 2.07 1.02 2.09 0.96 1.04 ‐ ‐ 0.88 0.96 ‐ 1.23 1.06
*2035 3.90 93.54 2.09 122.16 11.61 ‐ ‐ 119.24 11.35 ‐ 1.50 0.77
*2050 4.80 139.16 2.10 183.20 12.57 ‐ ‐ 179.00 12.04 ‐ 2.63 0.76
2012 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2020 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2035 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2050 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
*2020 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
*2035 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
*2050 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2012 205,193 198,679 6,514 62,461 45,879 15,352 1,228 60,629 44,644 14,816 46,679 3.18
2020 245,011 231,974 13,037 71,717 48,405 22,083 1,228 68,685 46,368 21,151 70,873 3.23
2035 284,279 271,038 13,241 82,663 52,969 28,466 1,228 78,002 49,370 27,461 82,815 3.28
2050 307,877 294,615 13,262 90,381 56,922 32,247 1,212 85,380 53,130 31,104 108,543 3.26
Ratios vs. 2012 (Scale Factors, Sf )
2020 1.19 1.17 2.00 1.15 1.06 1.44 1.00 1.13 1.04 1.43 1.52 1.02
2035 1.39 1.36 2.03 1.32 1.15 1.85 1.00 1.29 1.11 1.85 1.77 1.03
2050 1.50 1.48 2.04 1.45 1.24 2.10 0.99 1.41 1.19 2.10 2.33 1.02
Otay Mesa
Service Area
870
(inc. 571)
Total District
Unassigned 0
Page 6 of 6 OWD Demand Forecast_draft_V4b_052315 (jm edits2)
Scale Factors PZ
Table C‐3
Water Unit Use and Duty Factors -- 2015 Update
Land Use
Code Land Use Type
2008 WRMP
Total Unit
Demand
2008 WRMP
Adjusted
Potable Unit
Demand
Average 2013
Potable Billing
Data
2015 MP Total
Unit Demand
Recycled
Water
Reduction
Factor
2015 MP
Adjusted
Potable
Unit Demand 1
Change
VL
SFR Rural Estate
Very Low Residential
(<1 DU/ac) (1-in. or larger meter)
1,050 gpd/DU 1,050 gpd/DU n/a 1,000 gpd/DU - 1,000 gpd/DU -5%
L
SFR Custom Lot
Low Density Residential
(1-3 DU/ac) (1-in. meter)
850 gpd/DU 850 gpd/DU 693 gpd/DU 700 gpd/DU - 700 gpd/DU -18%
M
SFR Standard
Medium-Density Residential
(4-10 DU/ac typ.) (3/4-in. meter)
500 gpd/DU 425 gpd/DU 362 gpd/DU 435 gpd/DU 0.15 370 gpd/DU -13%
HD
MFR
High-Density Residential
(typ >10 DU/ac)
300 gpd/DU 255 gpd/DU 164 gpd/DU 200 gpd/DU 0.15 170 gpd/DU -33%
E School 1,785 gpd/ac 1,428 gpd/ac n/a 1,785 gpd/ac 0.20 1,428 gpd/DU n/c
R Church / Religious Facility 1,785 gpd/ac 1,428 gpd/ac n/a 1,785 gpd/ac 0.20 1,428 gpd/DU n/c
CPF Community Purpose Facility 893 gpd/ac 714 gpd/ac n/a 893 gpd/ac 0.20 714 gpd/DU n/c
HP Hospital / Medical Facility 3,035 gpd/ac 2,428 gpd/ac n/a 3,035 gpd/ac 0.20 2,428 gpd/DU n/c
C Commercial 1,785 gpd/ac 1,607 gpd/ac n/a 1,785 gpd/ac 0.10 1,607 gpd/DU n/c
I(W)
Industrial, specific to warehouse
industrial common in Otay Mesa; other
Industrial per custom analysis
893 gpd/ac 848 gpd/ac n/a 893 gpd/ac 0.05 848 gpd/DU n/c
IRR 2 Irrigation 2,155 gpd/ac 2,155 gpd/ac n/a 1,900 gpd/ac - 1,900 gpd/DU -12%
Other /
Custom 3
Other, or non-standard uses requiring
custom analysis n/a n/a n/a Custom 3 Custom 3
Notes:
1. District reserves the right to adjust unit demands to fit specific circumstances of individual development projects, and to undertake or require applicants to undertake custom demand analysis subject to District review and approval.
2. IRR unit demand based on average District ETo = 52-in./yr (CIMIS Zones 6 and 9), average landcape ordinance limit of 50%
ETo, average usable rainfall = 8 in., and irrigation efficiency of 85%
3. Requires custom water use projection, subject to District review
Otay Unit Use and Duty Factors_051916.xlsx
Table C-4: Specific Planned Development Projects Land Use and Dwelling Units (Approved Units)
SF (DU) MF (DU)
Completed
SF (DU)
Completed
MF (DU)
Sycuan Indian Res. (4)40 40 170.0 460.0
Total 40 0 40 170.0 0.0 0.0 460.0 0.0
Peaceful Valley Ranch 52 1 12.1
Simpson Farm 94 0.9
Honey Springs Ranch
Rancho Jamul Estates 151 3.6
Rancho Jamul Gande 23
Planning Area 17 296
Sweetwater Village 126 0.4
Private Drive Estates 300
Lakeshore 100
Total 1,142 0 1 0 0.9 0.0 15.7 0.4 0.0
Vista Mother Miguel 41 41
Bella Lago9 140 87
Birch Foundation 128
Bonita Meadows 496 496 1.6
Eastlake Design District 28.9
Eastlake Woods/Trails9 661 634
Eastlake Vistas9 777 1,197 777 1,197
El Dorado Ridge9 104
Main St. Auto Park 47.7
Main St. Industrial 81.5
Hillsdale System
Community
Purpose
Facility (ac)
Park Land
(ac)
School
Property
(ac)a
Water System
Planned Development
Project
Approved Residential Dwellings Commercial
Development
(ac)
Industrial
Development
(ac)
Regulatory
Central Area System
Page 1 of 3
Table C-4: Specific Planned Development Projects Land Use and Dwelling Units (Approved Units)
SF (DU) MF (DU)
Completed
SF (DU)
Completed
MF (DU)
Community
Purpose
Facility (ac)
Park Land
(ac)
School
Property
(ac)a
Water System
Planned Development
Project
Approved Residential Dwellings Commercial
Development
(ac)
Industrial
Development
(ac)
Jackson Place9 116 0.5
San Miguel Ranch9 889 514 889 514 5.1
Sunbow 54.7
Village 2 5, 9 1,159 3,379 397 848 23.9 92.9 13.6 63.6 19.8
Village 3 10 1,002 595 8.2 28.6 4.2 7.9 8.3
Village 4 750 70.0
Village 5 4.5
Village 69 925 1,306 925 1,295
Village 79 804 316 804 316 7.2 6.3
Village 8 West 9, 11 621 1,429 14.5 5.8 27.9 31.6
Village 8 East 2,8,9 943 2,617 4.2 7.3 10.8
Village 9 1,9 105 3,895 17.8 5.0 27.5 19.8
Village 10 2,8,9 695 1,045 4.3 7.6 9.2
Village 119 1,101 1,187 1,101 1,144 35.0
Village 13a,*1,881 57 14.1 2.1 29.6 10.0
Village 1412 1,119 3.6 2.0 20.1 8.8
Village 15
Regional Technology Park 85.0
University 1, 2, 3, 13 2,500 290.0
Planning Area 12 (EUC) 3,149 273 144.4 10.7 23.2 6.0
Planning Area 12 (FC-2) 6, 7 600 20.5 2.0
Planning Area 16/19 125
Planning Area 18b
Planning Area 20 15.0 188.0
Total 13,612 24,756 6,151 5,587 269.2 419.3 69.9 474.7 449.3
Page 2 of 3
Table C-4: Specific Planned Development Projects Land Use and Dwelling Units (Approved Units)
SF (DU) MF (DU)
Completed
SF (DU)
Completed
MF (DU)
Community
Purpose
Facility (ac)
Park Land
(ac)
School
Property
(ac)a
Water System
Planned Development
Project
Approved Residential Dwellings Commercial
Development
(ac)
Industrial
Development
(ac)
Planning Area 18a 0.0
Central Village14 3,922 44.9 12.6 13.1
Sunroad15 3,158 7.8 63.8
Other Developments 582 582 784.4 6,712.4 1,299.2 5.0
Total 3,740 3,922 582 0 837.1 6,712.4 1,299.2 81.4 13.1
TOTAL 18,534 28,678 6,774 5,587 1,277 7,132 1,385 1,017 462
1) Per "Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Village 8 West and 9" by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., November 2010.
2) Per Land Offer Agreement between City of Chula Vista and OV Three Two, LLC, and JJJ & K Investments Two, LLC, approved August 17, 2010.
3) Per Land Offer Agreement between City of Chula Vista and OV Three Two, LLC, and JJJ & K Investments Two, LLC, approved on May 20, 2008.
4) Area to be annexed includes the original reservation, or approximately 640 acres.
5) Per Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report, Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Amendment, dated September 2013.
6) Per Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial SPA Amendment by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., January 28, 2013.
7) Commercial includes 257 hotel rooms. Previously approved commercial acreage includes proposed residential densification.
8) Land Offer Agreement amendment to add 297 units distributed between Village 3, 8 East, and 10.
9) Per Major Project Development Status report from City of Chula Vista dated September 1, 2016.
10) Per Village 3 North Subarea Master Plan prepared by Mission Consulting Services dated January 2016.
11) Per Subarea Master Plan of Potable and Recycled Water for Otay Ranch Village 8 West prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. dated April 2016.
12) Per Overview of Water Service for Proctor Valley Village 14 and Preserve by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., November 2015.
13) Per Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report for the City of Chula Vista University Innovation District Project dated August 2016.
14) Per Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report, Central Village Specific Plan, July 2016.
15) Per Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report for the Otay 250 Sunroad East Otay Mesa Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project dated May 2016.
a) Entitled to up to 1500 Units.
*) Includes 200 Resort Units for Otay Ranch Resort.
Otay Mesa System
Page 3 of 3
1w
1
5
6
22w
3
7
4
8w4
P P
8e 9 10
U UE11OF
14
13
M
MS
C
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTomAppendix COtay Water District Future Developments
Legend
MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL (M)
CENTRAL VILLAGE (C)
SUNROAD (S)
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL (PA12) (F)
OTAY RANCH TOWN CENTER (PA12) (O)
PLANNING AREA 20 (P)
UNIVERSITY (U)
VILLAGE 1
VILLAGE 1 WEST
VILLAGE 2
VILLAGE 2 WEST
VILLAGE 3
VILLAGE 4
VILLAGE 5
VILLAGE 6
VILLAGE 7
VILLAGE 8 EAST
VILLAGE 8 WEST
VILLAGE 9
VILLAGE 10
VILLAGE 11
VILLAGE 13
VILLAGE 14
EXISTING POTABLE WATER MAINS
EXISTING RECYCLED WATER MAINS
OWD Boundary
OWD AREA OF INFLUENCE (AOI)
EASTERN URBAN CENTER (PA12) (E)
APPENDIX D
Water System Information and
Future Static Hydraulic Analysis
This page is intentionally left blank
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD)
Operational
(0.30xMDD)Fire Emergency
(1.0 x MDD)Total
640‐1 2008 Concrete 10
640‐2 2008 Concrete 10
657‐1 (1‐1 Reservoir) 1957 Steel 1.0
657‐2 (1‐1A Reservoir) 1990 Steel 0.8
850‐1 (20‐1 Reservoir) 1959 Steel 1.1
850‐2 (20‐1 Reservoir) 1976 Steel 3
850‐3 (20‐2 Reservoir) 1984 Steel 3.1
850‐4 2008 Steel 2.2
1004 1004‐2 (Dictionary Hill Res) 2004 Steel 44 0.06 3.00 133 0.19 1.4 0.06 0.3 0.19 0.55 0.85 0.85
3,317 4.78 0.17 32.6 3.37 2.31 11.22 16.90 15.70 15.70
803‐2 (20‐3 Reservoir) 1979 Steel 2
803‐3 (Singing Hills Res) 1986 Steel 2.2
803‐4 (Vista Grande Res) 2006 Steel 5.8
978‐1 (3‐2 Reservoir) 1959 Steel 0.5
978‐2 (Filiponi Reservoir) 1992 Rec. Conc.2.5
1200 1200‐1 (Grant Reservoir) 1996 Steel 105 0.15 2.85 298 0.43 1 0.13 0.24 0.43 0.80 0.20 0.20
2,000 2.88 0.00 14.0 2.03 1.68 6.78 10.49 3.51 3.51
520‐2 (Regulatory Reservoir 1983 Steel 5.1
520‐3 (Regulatory Reservoir 1992 Rec. Conc.20
832‐1 (2‐1 Reservoir) 1962 Concrete 0.9
832‐2 (2‐1A Reservoir) 1991 Steel 2
944‐1 (9‐1 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 0.3
944‐2 (9‐1A Reservoir) 1992 Steel 3.1
1090 1090‐1 (2‐2 Reservoir) 1962 Concrete 18 0.03 3.00 55 0.08 0.5 0.02 0.3 0.08 0.40 0.10 0.10
1296‐1 (9‐2 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 1
1296‐2 (9‐2A Reservoir) 1991 Steel 2
1296‐3 2010 Concrete 2
1485‐1 (9‐3 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 0.3
1485‐2 (9‐3A Reservoir) 2006 Steel 1.6
1655 1655‐1 Phase II (2017 ‐ 2022)11 0.02 3.00 33 0.05 0.5 0.01 0.3 0.05 0.36 0.14 0.14
947 1.36 0.03 39.3 1.12 4.32 3.74 9.18 29.62 29.62
6,264 9.02 0.20 85.9 6.52 8.31 21.74 36.57 48.83 48.83
Table D-1: Phase II (2020) Potable Distribution System Storage Analysis
Pressure
Zone Facility ID (Name)Year
Built Material
Projected 2020 AAD Zones
Supported
AAD
MDD Avg PF Capacity
(MG)
Required Storage per Design Criteria (MG)Surplus/
(Deficit)
(MG)
Net Surplus
(MG)
Max/ Avg
PF
La Presa System
640(1)1,053 1.52 0.13 2.32 2,646 13.85
657 289 0.42 2.68 774 1.11 0.33 0.18
3.81 1.14 1.2 3.81 6.15 13.85
1.11 1.63 0.17 0.17
850(2)1,931 2.78 0.05 2.16 4,242
3.27
0.83
La Presa Total
Hillsdale System
803(3)1,314 1.89 2.25 2,956 4.26
6.11 1.83 0.63 6.11 8.57 0.83
0.84 2.50 1,455
1.28 1.2 4.26 6.73 3.27
0.19 1.2 0.63 2.02 23.08 23.08
0.04
Hillsdale System Total
Regulatory System
520 154 0.22 2.85 440 0.63
2.09 0.63 0.24 2.09 2.96 0.04978 582
2.66
1296(4)381 0.55 0.03 2.58 1,034
1.01
944 3 0.004 3.00 9 0.01 0.00 0.72
0.90 0.27 0.72 0.90 1.89 1.01832
0.91
Regulatory System Total
North District Totals
1.86
1485 152 0.22 2.85 432 0.62 0.19 0.18
1.49 0.45 1.2 1.49 3.14 1.86
227
0.62 0.99 0.91
0.01 0.74 2.66
0.33 2.75 623
Page 1 of 2
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD)
Operational
(0.30xMDD)Fire Emergency
(1.0 x MDD)Total
Table D-1: Phase II (2020) Potable Distribution System Storage Analysis
Pressure
Zone Facility ID (Name)Year
Built Material
Projected 2020 AAD Zones
Supported
AAD
MDD Avg PF Capacity
(MG)
Required Storage per Design Criteria (MG)Surplus/
(Deficit)
(MG)
Net Surplus
(MG)
Max/ Avg
PF
458‐1 (10‐1 Reservoir) 1964 Steel 0.8
458‐2 (10‐2 Reservoir) 1967 Steel 1.8
485 485‐1 (22‐2 Reservoir) 1983 Steel 336 0.48 2.62 880 1.27 1 0.38 1.2 1.27 2.85 (1.85)
624‐1 (Patzig Reservoir) 1999 Earth. Emb.12.4
624‐2 (22‐3 Reservoir) 1988 Steel 8.1
624‐3 (Eastlake) 1997 Rec. Conc.30
711‐1 (22‐1 Reservoir) 1976 Steel 3.1
711‐2 (22‐1A Reservoir) 1993 Steel 2.3
711‐3 (22‐1B Reservoir) 2002 Earth. Emb.16
980‐1 (22‐4 Reservoir) 1985 Steel 5
980‐2 (22‐5 Reservoir) 1989 Steel 5
13,152 18.94 1.21 85.50 12.00 6.00 40.00 58.00 27.50 27.50
571 571‐1 (Roll Reservoir) 1993 Earth. Emb. 0 0.00 3.00 0 0.00 36.7 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 36.70 36.70
870 870‐1 (Upper Reservoir) 1993 Earth. Emb. 2,515 3.62 2.09 5257 7.57 11 2.27 1.2 7.57 11.04 (0.04) (0.04)
2,515 3.62 0.00 47.70 2.27 1.20 7.57 11.04 36.66 36.66
15,667 22.56 1.21 133.20 14.27 7.20 47.57 69.04 64.16 64.16
21,931 32 1.4 219 21 16 69 106 113 113
(1) Storage for the 640 zone includes demands for the reduced 493 zone.
(2) Includes demands for the 1050 Pointe hydropneumatic system.
(3) Includes demands for the 860 Cottonwood hydropneumatic system.
(4) Includes demands for the 1530 Vista Diego and 1655 Rancho Jamul hydropneumatic systems.
(5) Includes demands for the 340 reduced system. Storage deficit for the 458 and 485 zones included in the 624 reservoirs.
(6) Includes demands for the 580 reduced system.
(7) Includes demands for the 1100 hydropneumatic system.
35.55
711(6)4,809 6.93 0.22 1.92
(1.95)
624(5)2,060 2.97 0.72 2.08 5,318 7.66 2.30
1,788 2.57 0.77 1.2 2.57 4.55458 736
(10.44)
Total Central System
2.39 2.39
980(7)5,211 7.50 0.28 1.90 10,278 14.80 4.44
9,513 13.70 4.11 1.2 13.70 19.01
Total Otay Mesa System
Total South District
Total District
Otay Mesa System
1.2 14.80 20.44 (10.44)
1.2 7.66 11.15 39.35
Central System
1.06 2.43
Page 2 of 2
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD)
Operational
(0.30xMDD)Fire Emergency
(1.0 x MDD)Total
640‐1 2008 Concrete 10
640‐2 2008 Concrete 10
850‐1 (20‐1 Reservoir) 1959 Steel 1.1
850‐2 (20‐1 Reservoir) 1976 Steel 3
850‐3 (20‐2 Reservoir) 1984 Steel 3.1
850‐4 2008 Steel 2.2
1004 1004‐2 (Dictionary Hill Res) 2004 Steel 65 0.09 3.00 194 0.28 1.4 0.08 0.3 0.28 0.66 0.74 0.74
3,329 4.79 0.71 30.8 3.60 2.13 12.01 17.75 13.05 13.05
803‐2 (20‐3 Reservoir) 1979 Steel 2
803‐3 (Singing Hills Res) 1986 Steel 2.2
803‐4 (Vista Grande Res) 2006 Steel 5.8
978‐1 (3‐2 Reservoir) 1959 Steel 0.5
978‐2 (Filiponi Reservoir) 1992 Rec. Conc.2.5
1200 1200‐1 (Grant Reservoir) 1996 Steel 112 0.16 2.85 319 0.46 1 0.14 0.24 0.46 0.84 0.16 0.16
1,992 2.87 0.00 14.0 2.03 1.68 6.76 10.47 3.53 3.53
520‐2 (Regulatory Reservoir 1983 Steel 5.1
520‐3 (Regulatory Reservoir 1992 Rec. Conc.20
832‐1 (2‐1 Reservoir) 1962 Concrete 0.9
832‐2 (2‐1A Reservoir) 1991 Steel 2
944‐1 (9‐1 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 0.3
944‐2 (9‐1A Reservoir) 1992 Steel 3.1
1090 1090‐1 (2‐2 Reservoir) 1962 Concrete 17 0.02 3.00 52 0.07 0.5 0.02 0.3 0.07 0.40 0.10 0.10
1296‐1 (9‐2 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 1
1296‐2 (9‐2A Reservoir) 1991 Steel 2
1296‐3 2010 Concrete 2
1296‐4 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 2
1485‐1 (9‐3 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 0.3
1485‐2 (9‐3A Reservoir) 2006 Steel 1.6
1655 1655‐1 Phase II (2017 ‐ 2022)10 0.01 3.00 30 0.04 0.5 0.01 0.3 0.04 0.36 0.14 0.14
1,052 1.51 0.04 41.3 1.24 4.32 4.13 9.69 31.11 31.11
6,373 9.18 0.75 86.1 6.87 8.13 22.91 37.91 47.69 47.69
211
0.71 1.10 0.80
0.02 0.74 2.66
0.30 2.75 580
0.80
Regulatory System Total
North District Totals
3.37
1485 173 0.25 2.85 493 0.71 0.21 0.18
1.87 0.56 1.2 1.87 3.63 3.37
2.66
1296(4)485 0.70 0.04 2.54 1,299
1.09
944 4 0.005 3.00 11 0.02 0.00 0.72
0.83 0.25 0.72 0.83 1.81 1.09832
0.19 1.2 0.62 2.01 23.09 23.09
0.02
Hillsdale System Total
Regulatory System
520 152 0.22 2.85 433 0.62
2.11 0.63 0.24 2.11 2.98 0.02978 585 0.84 2.50 1,463
La Presa Total
Hillsdale System
803(3)1,295 1.86 2.25 2,913 4.19
12.464.88 1.46 1.2 4.88 7.54 12.46
1.26 1.2 4.19 6.65 3.35 3.35
(0.15)6.86 2.06 0.63 6.86 9.55 (0.15)
La Presa System
640(1)1,057 1.52 0.67 2.23 3,387
3.18 0.04 2.13 4,763850(2)2,208
Table D-2: Phase IIIA (2050) Potable Distribution System Storage Analysis
Pressure
Zone Facility ID (Name)Year
Built Material
Projected 2050
(Ultimate) AAD Zones
Supported
AAD
MDD Avg PF Capacity
(MG)
Required Storage per Design Criteria (MG)Surplus/
(Deficit)
(MG)
Net Surplus
(MG)
Max/ Avg
PF
Page 1 of 2
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD)
Operational
(0.30xMDD)Fire Emergency
(1.0 x MDD)Total
Table D-2: Phase IIIA (2050) Potable Distribution System Storage Analysis
Pressure
Zone Facility ID (Name)Year
Built Material
Projected 2050
(Ultimate) AAD Zones
Supported
AAD
MDD Avg PF Capacity
(MG)
Required Storage per Design Criteria (MG)Surplus/
(Deficit)
(MG)
Net Surplus
(MG)
Max/ Avg
PF
458‐1 (10‐1 Reservoir) 1964 Steel 0.8
458‐2 (10‐2 Reservoir) 1967 Steel 1.8
485 485‐1 (22‐2 Reservoir) 1983 Steel 322 0.46 2.62 844 1.22 1 0.36 1.2 1.22 2.78 (1.78)
624‐1 (Patzig Reservoir) 1999 Earth. Emb.12.4
624‐2 (22‐3 Reservoir) 1988 Steel 8.1
624‐3 (Eastlake) 1997 Rec. Conc.30
711‐1 (22‐1 Reservoir) 1976 Steel 3.1
711‐2 (22‐1A Reservoir) 1993 Steel 2.3
711‐3 (22‐1B Reservoir) 2002 Earth. Emb.16
980‐1 (22‐4 Reservoir) 1985 Steel 5
980‐2 (22‐5 Reservoir) 1989 Steel 5
980‐3 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 4
980‐4 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 8
980‐5 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 2
14,980 21.57 1.33 99.50 13.44 6.00 44.80 64.24 35.26 35.26
571 571‐1 (Roll Reservoir) 1993 Earth. Emb. 0 0.00 3.00 0 0.00 36.7 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 36.70 36.70
870 870‐1 (Upper Reservoir) 1993 Earth. Emb. 5,579 8.03 1.90 10599 15.26 11 4.58 1.2 15.26 21.04 (10.04) (10.04)
5,579 8.03 0.00 47.70 4.58 1.20 15.26 21.04 26.66 26.66
20,559 29.60 1.33 147.20 18.02 7.20 60.07 85.28 61.92 61.92
26,932 39 2.1 233 25 15 83 123 110 110
(1) Storage for the 640 zone includes demands for the reduced 493 zone.
(2) Includes demands for the 1050 Pointe hydropneumatic system.
(3) Includes demands for the 860 Cottonwood hydropneumatic system.
(4) Includes demands for the 1530 Vista Diego and 1655 Rancho Jamul hydropneumatic systems.
(5) Includes demands for the 340 reduced system. Storage deficit for the 458 and 485 zones included in the 624 reservoirs.
(6) Includes demands for the 580 reduced system.
(7) Includes demands for the 1100 hydropneumatic system.
Central System
1.02 2.45
Total Otay Mesa System
Total South District
Total District
Otay Mesa System
1.2 16.04 22.06 1.94
1.2 9.24 13.21 37.29
1.94
Total Central System
(0.34) (0.34)
980(7)5,713 8.23 0.27 1.89 11,141 16.04 4.81
10,971 15.80 4.74 1.2 15.80 21.74
33.65
711(6)5,642 8.13 0.22 1.89
(1.86)
624(5)2,592 3.73 0.84 2.02 6,417 9.24 2.77
1,739 2.50 0.75 1.2 2.50 4.46458 710
Page 2 of 2
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD)
Operational
(0.30xMDD)Fire Emergency
(1.0 x MDD)Total
640‐1 2008 Concrete 10
640‐2 2008 Concrete 10
640‐3 Phase IIIB (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 10
850‐1 (20‐1 Reservoir) 1959 Steel 1.1
850‐2 (20‐1 Reservoir) 1976 Steel 3
850‐3 (20‐2 Reservoir) 1984 Steel 3.1
850‐4 2008 Steel 2.2
1004 1004‐2 (Dictionary Hill Res) 2004 Steel 65 0.09 3.00 194 0.28 1.4 0.08 0.3 0.28 0.66 0.74 0.74
3,329 4.79 0.71 40.8 3.60 2.13 12.01 17.75 23.05 23.05
803‐2 (20‐3 Reservoir) 1979 Steel 2
803‐3 (Singing Hills Res) 1986 Steel 2.2
803‐4 (Vista Grande Res) 2006 Steel 5.8
978‐1 (3‐2 Reservoir) 1959 Steel 0.5
978‐2 (Filiponi Reservoir) 1992 Rec. Conc.2.5
1200 1200‐1 (Grant Reservoir) 1996 Steel 112 0.16 2.85 319 0.46 1 0.14 0.24 0.46 0.84 0.16 0.16
1,992 2.87 0.00 14.0 2.03 1.68 6.76 10.47 3.53 3.53
520‐2 (Regulatory Reservoir 1983 Steel 5.1
520‐3 (Regulatory Reservoir 1992 Rec. Conc.20
832‐1 (2‐1 Reservoir) 1962 Concrete 0.9
832‐2 (2‐1A Reservoir) 1991 Steel 2
944‐1 (9‐1 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 0.3
944‐2 (9‐1A Reservoir) 1992 Steel 3.1
1090 1090‐1 (2‐2 Reservoir) 1962 Concrete 17 0.02 3.00 52 0.07 0.5 0.02 0.3 0.07 0.40 0.10 0.10
1296‐1 (9‐2 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 1
1296‐2 (9‐2A Reservoir) 1991 Steel 2
1296‐3 2010 Concrete 2
1296‐4 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 2
1485‐1 (9‐3 Reservoir) 1962 Steel 0.3
1485‐2 (9‐3A Reservoir) 2006 Steel 1.6
1655 1655‐1 Phase II (2017 ‐ 2022)10 0.01 3.00 30 0.04 0.5 0.01 0.3 0.04 0.36 0.14 0.14
1,052 1.51 0.04 41.3 1.24 4.32 4.13 9.69 31.11 31.11
6,373 9.18 0.75 96.1 6.87 8.13 22.91 37.91 57.69 57.69
Max/ Avg
PF
0.71 1.10 0.80 0.80
Regulatory System Total
North District Totals
3.37
1485 173 0.25 2.85 493 0.71 0.21 0.18
1.87 0.56 1.2 1.87 3.63 3.37
0.74 2.66 2.66
1296(4)485 0.70 0.04 2.54 1,299
585
1.09
944 4 0.005 3.00 11 0.02 0.00 0.72
0.83 0.25 0.72 0.83 1.81 1.09832 211 0.30 2.75 580
0.02
3.35
0.19 1.2 0.62 2.01 23.09 23.09
0.02
Hillsdale System Total
Regulatory System
520 152 0.22 2.85 433 0.62
2.11 0.63 0.24 2.11 2.98 0.02978
4,763
0.84 2.50 1,463
1.26 1.2 4.19 6.65
Surplus/
(Deficit)
(MG)
Net Surplus
(MG)
3.35
(0.15)
La Presa Total
Hillsdale System
803(3)1,295 1.86 2.25 2,913 4.19
6.86 2.06 0.63 6.86 9.55 (0.15)850(2)2,208 3.18 0.04 2.13
La Presa System
640(1)1,057 1.52 0.67 2.23 3,387
Table D-3: Phase IIIB (2050) Potable Distribution System Storage Analysis
Pressure
Zone Facility ID (Name)Year
Built Material
Projected 2050
(Ultimate) AAD Zones
Supported
AAD
MDD Avg PF Capacity
(MG)
Required Storage per Design Criteria (MG)
22.464.88 1.46 1.2 4.88 7.54 22.46
Page 1 of 2
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD)
Operational
(0.30xMDD)Fire Emergency
(1.0 x MDD)Total
Max/ Avg
PF
Surplus/
(Deficit)
(MG)
Net Surplus
(MG)
Table D-3: Phase IIIB (2050) Potable Distribution System Storage Analysis
Pressure
Zone Facility ID (Name)Year
Built Material
Projected 2050
(Ultimate) AAD Zones
Supported
AAD
MDD Avg PF Capacity
(MG)
Required Storage per Design Criteria (MG)
458‐1 (10‐1 Reservoir) 1964 Steel 0.8
458‐2 (10‐2 Reservoir) 1967 Steel 1.8
485 485‐1 (22‐2 Reservoir) 1983 Steel 322 0.46 2.62 844 1.22 1 0.36 1.2 1.22 2.78 (1.78)
624‐1 (Patzig Reservoir) 1999 Earth. Emb.12.4
624‐2 (22‐3 Reservoir) 1988 Steel 8.1
624‐3 (Eastlake) 1997 Rec. Conc.30
624‐4 Phase IIIB (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 30
711‐1 (22‐1 Reservoir) 1976 Steel 3.1
711‐2 (22‐1A Reservoir) 1993 Steel 2.3
711‐3 (22‐1B Reservoir) 2002 Earth. Emb.16
980‐1 (22‐4 Reservoir) 1985 Steel 5
980‐2 (22‐5 Reservoir) 1989 Steel 5
980‐3 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 4
980‐4 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 8
980‐5 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 2
14,980 21.57 1.33 129.50 13.44 6.00 44.80 64.24 65.26 65.26
571 571‐1 (Roll Reservoir) 1993 Earth. Emb. 0 0.00 3.00 0 0.00 36.7 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 36.70 36.70
870‐1 (Upper Reservoir) 1993 Earth. Emb.11
870‐2 Phase IIIB (2023 ‐ Ultimate)7
5,579 8.03 0.00 54.70 4.58 1.20 15.26 21.04 33.66 33.66
20,559 29.60 1.33 184.20 18.02 7.20 60.07 85.28 98.92 98.92
26,932 39 2.1 280 25 15 83 123 157 157
(1) Storage for the 640 zone includes demands for the reduced 493 zone.
(2) Includes demands for the 1050 Pointe hydropneumatic system.
(3) Includes demands for the 860 Cottonwood hydropneumatic system.
(4) Includes demands for the 1530 Vista Diego and 1655 Rancho Jamul hydropneumatic systems.
(5) Includes demands for the 340 reduced system. Storage deficit for the 458 and 485 zones included in the 624 reservoirs.
(6) Includes demands for the 580 reduced system.
(7) Includes demands for the 1100 hydropneumatic system.
(3.04) (3.04)
Total Otay Mesa System
Total South District
Total District
10599 15.26 4.58 1.2 15.26 21.04
Otay Mesa System
870 5,579 8.03 1.90
1.2 16.04 22.06 1.94 1.94
Total Central System
711(6)5,642 8.13 0.22 1.89 (0.34) (0.34)
980(7)5,713 8.23 0.27 1.89 11,141 16.04 4.81
10,971 15.80 4.74 1.2 15.80 21.74
624(5)2,592 3.73 0.84 2.02 6,417 9.24 2.77
1,739 2.50 0.75 1.2 2.50 4.46
1.2 9.24 13.21 67.29 63.65
Central System
458 710 1.02 2.45 (1.86)
Page 2 of 2
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
La Presa System
1 2,000 2.88
2 2,000 2.88
3 2,000 2.88
4 2,000 2.88
5(1)‐‐ ‐‐
1 500 0.72
2 500 0.72
3 500 0.72
1 240 0.35
2 240 0.35
3(3)1,500 2.16
Hillsdale System
1 2,800 4.03
2 2,800 4.03
3 2,800 4.03
4 2,800 4.03
5 2,800 4.03
6(1)‐‐
1 850 1.22
2 850 1.22
3 700 1.01
4 700 1.01
1 500 0.72
2 500 0.72
3 500 0.72
1 100 0.14
2 100 0.14
88 62 44 Cottonwood
Hydro (860)100 0 13 0 7.00 3.00 38 56
2,523 3,432 568 (273) (1,182)
12
447 659 702 553 341 1200‐1 1,000 1 105 0 6.30 2.85 298
1,682
3,030
978‐1(6)2,250 3 582 105 5.00 2.45
2.15 4,300 6,450 8,170 6,900 4,750 803‐1(4)11,200 16 1,314 686 4.09
224 144 96 16 1050 Pointe
Hydro 240 0 32 0 7.00 3.00 96 144
199 309 867 801 691 1004‐2 1,000 1 44 0 7.00 3.00 133
4,796 850‐2(2)6,000 9 1,931 321 4.00 2.13 7,194 9,007 1,204 (1,194) (3,007)
Table D-4 Phase II (2020) Potable Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump
Station Pump Unit
Rated Capacity Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
Page 1 of 4
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
Table D-4 Phase II (2020) Potable Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump
Station Pump Unit
Rated Capacity Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
Regulatory System
1 2,100 3.02
2 2,100 3.02
3(1)‐‐ ‐‐
4(1)‐‐ ‐‐
5(1)‐‐ ‐‐
6 2,100 3.02
1090‐1 Replacement, Phase II (2017 ‐ 2022) 400 1 18 0 7.00 3.00 55 83 129 345 317 271
1 650 0.94
2 650 0.94
3 1,700 2.45
4 1,700 2.45
1 1,750 2.52
2 575 0.83
3 575 0.83
4(1)‐‐ ‐‐
5 1,750 2.52
1 450 0.65
2 450 0.65
3 450 0.65
1 350 0.5
2 350 0.5
3 230 0.33
4 40 0.06
1 260 0.37
2 260 0.37
3(3)1,100 1.58
0 19 0 7.00 87 135 202 173 125 Vista Diego
Hydro (1530)260 3.00 58
33
(55)
Rancho Jamul
Hydro (1655)620 1 11 0 7.00 3.00
2.85 432 648 955 468 252 1485‐2 900 1 152 0 6.30
2,901 1,492 788 (1)
50 77 587 570 543
1296‐1(4)2,900 4 381 182 5.15 2.50 1,408 2,112
2,124 2,917 1,584 876 83 944‐1(5)3,000 4 3 563 5.15 2.50 1,416
255 2.41 1,945 2,917 3,945 2,255 1,283 832‐1(4)4,200 6 227 582 4.88
Page 2 of 4
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
Table D-4 Phase II (2020) Potable Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump
Station Pump Unit
Rated Capacity Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
Central Area
1 2,500 3.6
2 2,500 3.6
3 2,500 3.6
4 2,500 3.6
5 2,500 3.6
1 4,000 5.76
2 4,000 5.76
3 4,000 5.76
1 4,000 5.76
2 4,000 5.76
3 4,000 5.76
4 4,000 5.76
5(1)‐‐ ‐‐
6(1)‐‐ ‐‐
1 65 0.09
2 780 1.12
3 780 1.12
4(3)1,750 2.52
1100 (Rolling
Hills Ranch)845 1 193 0 5.95 2.75 530
8,000
14,919 16,905 2,054 (2,919) (4,905)
795 1,147 315 50 (302)
9,946 980‐2 12,000 17 5,211 0 3.24 1.91
3.00 0 0 0 8,000 8,000 980‐1(8)8,000 12 0 0 7.00
16,315 487 (4,270) (6,315)711‐1(7)10,000 14 4,809 152 3.29 1.92 9,513 14,270
Page 3 of 4
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
Table D-4 Phase II (2020) Potable Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump
Station Pump Unit
Rated Capacity Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
Otay Mesa
1 2,000 2.88
2 2,000 2.88
3 3,500 5.04
4 3,500 5.04
5 3,500 5.04
870‐1 Replacement, Phase I (present ‐ 2016)13,889 20 2,515 0 3.90 2.09 5,257 7,886 9,810 8,632 6,003 4,079
1 6,850 9.86
2 6,850 9.86
3 6,850 9.86
Temporary
LOPS(10)1 12,500 18 12,500 18 12,500 12,500 12,500
(1) Space provided for an additional pump if needed.
(2) 657 and 1050 zone demands served from this zone.
(3) Fire service pump only.
(4) Demands from all zones in this service district higher than this zone are served by this zone.
(5) Demands from all zones in this service district higher than this zone are served by this zone, other than the 1090 zone. 1090‐1 will be replaced with 1090‐2 PS.
(6) 1200 zone demands served from this zone.
(7) 580 zone served from 711 zone.
(8) 980‐1 PS for emergency only. Used as a backup to the 980‐2 PS.
(9) 570 and 870‐1 Stations will be for emergency use only after 870‐2 construction.
(10) Temporary Lower Otay PS for emergency use only. To be replaced with a permanent station in the future.
13,700 13,700 13,700 571(9)13,700 20
870‐1(9)11,000 16 11,000 11,000 11,000
Page 4 of 4
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
La Presa System
1 2,000 2.88
2 2,000 2.88
3 2,000 2.88
4 2,000 2.88
5(1)‐‐ ‐‐
1 500 0.72
2 500 0.72
3 500 0.72
1 240 0.35
2 240 0.35
3(3)1,500 2.16
Hillsdale System
1 2,800 4.03
2 2,800 4.03
3 2,800 4.03
4 2,800 4.03
5 2,800 4.03
6(1)‐‐
1 850 1.22
2 850 1.22
3 700 1.01
4 700 1.01
978‐2 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 1,500 2.2
1 500 0.72
2 500 0.72
3 500 0.72
1200‐2 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 1,000 1.4
1 100 0.14
2 100 0.14
88 62 44 12 Cottonwood
Hydro (860)100 0.1 13 0 7.00 3.00 38 56
112 0 6.30 2.85 319
3,389 6,125 7,811 7,117 5,075
2,562 3,486 2,042 1,188 264
479 705 1,681
978‐1(6)2,250 3.2 585 112 5.00 2.45 1,708
1,521 1,295 1200‐1 1,000 1.4
2.17 4,083 803‐1(4)11,200 16.1 1,295 585 4.16
198 155 113 42 1050 Pointe
Hydro 240 0.4 28 0 7.00 3.00 85 127
291 452 806 709 548 1004‐2 1,000 1.4 65 0 7.00 3.00 194
5,422 850‐2(2)6,000 9 2,208 412 3.85 2.07 8,133 10,085 578 (2,133) (4,085)
Table D-5 Ultimate (2050) Potable Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump
Station Pump Unit Rated Capacity Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
Page 1 of 4
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
Table D-5 Ultimate (2050) Potable Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump
Station Pump Unit Rated Capacity Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
Regulatory System
1 2,100 3.02
2 2,100 3.02
3(1)‐‐ ‐‐
4(1)‐‐ ‐‐
5(1)‐‐ ‐‐
6 2,100 3.02
832‐1 Expansion, Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate)
1090‐1 Replacement, Phase II (2017 ‐ 2022) 400 0.6 17 0 7.00 3.00 52 78 121 348 322 279
1 650 0.94
2 650 0.94
3 1,700 2.45
4 1,700 2.45
944‐1 Expansion, Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate)
1 1,750 2.52
2 575 0.83
3 575 0.83
4(1)‐‐ ‐‐
5 1,750 2.52
1296‐1 Expansion, Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate)
1296‐2 Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 4,000 5.8
1 450 0.65
2 450 0.65
3 450 0.65
1 350 0.5
2 350 0.5
3 230 0.33
4 40 0.06
1 260 0.37
2 260 0.37
3(3)1,100 1.58
6,000 8.6
(189)
3,471 8,299 7,449 6,529
211 712 4.82 2.38 2,199 3,298 4,446
117 182 182 143 78
44 69 590 576 551
Vista Diego
Hydro (1530)260 0.4 26 0 7.00 3.00 78
30 Rancho Jamul
Hydro (1655)620 0.9 10 0 7.00 3.00
2.85 493 739 1,089 407 161 1485‐2 900 1.3 173 0 6.30
1296‐1(4)
485 209 5.00 2.45 1,701 2,551
2,565 3,490 4,290 3,435 2,510 944‐1(5)
4 694 5.00 2.45 1,710 6,000 8.6
4,601 3,502 832‐1(4)
2,354 6,800 9.8
Page 2 of 4
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
Table D-5 Ultimate (2050) Potable Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump
Station Pump Unit Rated Capacity Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
Central Area
711‐1 Replacement, Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 16,000 23.0 5,642 152 3.17 1.89 10,971 16,456 18,349 5,029 (456) (2,349)
1 4,000 5.76
2 4,000 5.76
3 4,000 5.76
1 4,000 5.76
2 4,000 5.76
3 4,000 5.76
4 4,000 5.76
5(1)‐‐ ‐‐
6(1)‐‐ ‐‐
980‐2 Expansion, Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate)
1 65 0.09
2 780 1.12
3 780 1.12
4(3)1,750 2.52
8,000
(244) (2,155)16,000 23.0
763 1,101 336 82 (256)1100 (Rolling
Hills Ranch)845 1.2 185 0 5.95 2.75 509
10,829 980‐2 5,713 0 3.18 1.90
8,000 8,000 980‐1(8)8,000 11.5
16,244 18,155 5,171
Page 3 of 4
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
Table D-5 Ultimate (2050) Potable Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump
Station Pump Unit Rated Capacity Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
Otay Mesa
1 2,000 2.88
2 2,000 2.88
3 3,500 5.04
4 3,500 5.04
5 3,500 5.04
870‐1 Replacement, Phase I (present ‐ 2016) 13,889 20.0 5,579 0 3.20 1.90 10,599 15,899 17,852 401 (4,899) (6,852)
1 6,850 9.86
2 6,850 9.86
3 6,850 9.86
980‐2 Expansion, Phase IIIA (2023 ‐ Ultimate) 18,000 25.9 18,000 18,000 18,000
(1) Space provided for an additional pump if needed.
(2) 657 and 1050 zone demands served from this zone.
(3) Fire service pump only.
(4) Demands from all zones in this service district higher than this zone are served by this zone.
(5) Demands from all zones in this service district higher than this zone are served by this zone, other than the 1090 zone. 1090‐1 will be replaced with 1090‐2 PS.
(6) 1200 zone demands served from this zone.
(7) 580 zone served from 711 zone.
(8) 980‐1 PS for emergency only. Used as a backup to the 980‐2 PS.
(9) 570 and 870‐1 Stations will be for emergency use only after 870‐2 construction.
13,700 13,700 13,700
11,000
571(9)13,700 19.7
11,000 11,000 870‐1(9)11,000 15.8
Page 4 of 4
Capacity
Required
Operational
Storage per
Design Criteria
(0.67 x MDD)
Surplus/
(Deficit)
gpm MGD gpm MGD (MG) (MG) (MG)
450 450‐1 18 0.03 2.7 48 0.07 12 0.05 12.0
680 680‐1(2)904 1.30 2.7 2,441 3.51 3.4 2.34 (0.6)
944‐112
927‐1 16.3
2,927 4.22 7,904 11.38 43.70 7.59 34.4
Capacity
Required
Operational
Storage per
Design Criteria
(0.67 x MDD)
Surplus/
(Deficit)
gpm MGD gpm MGD (MG) (MG) (MG)
450 450‐1 19 0.03 2.7 51 0.07 12 0.05 12.0
680‐1(2)3.4
680‐2(5)2.0
944‐112
927‐1 16.3
4,331 6.24 11,694 16.84 45.70 11.23 32.8
(5) 680‐2 Reservoir, Phase Phase IIC (2027 ‐ Ultimate).
680 1,496 2.15 2.7 4,040 5.82 3.88
7,603 10.95 7.30 21.0
System Total
(0.2)
(4) From WAS Design Guidelines Section 4.3, Table 4‐3‐3, Recycled Water Peaking Factors.
(1) Includes 5% non‐revenue water demand.
Table D-6 Existing (2013) Recycled Water Storage Analysis
Table D‑7 Phase IIC (2050) Recycled Water Storage Analysis
Pressure
Zone
Facility ID
(Name)
Existing Average Day
Demand(1)Max/ Avg
PF (4)
Max Day Demand (MDD
= ADD x PF)
23.1
System Total
(1) Includes 5% non‐revenue water demand.
(2) Only 50% available of 3.4 MG for operational storage based on 944 pump station settings.
944(3)2,006 2.89 2.7
(3) Includes demands for the 750, 780, and 815 reduced zones.
5,415 7.80 5.20
(3) Includes demands for the 750, 780, and 815 reduced zones.
Pressure
Zone
Facility ID
(Name)
Existing Average Day
Demand(1)Max/ Avg
PF (4)
Max Day Demand (MDD
= ADD x PF)
944(3)2,816 4.06 2.7
(2) Only 50% of 680‐1 Res available of 3.4 MG for operational storage based on 944 pump station settings.
(4) From WAS Design Guidelines Section 4.3, Table 4‐3‐3, Recycled Water Peaking Factors.
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
1 2,100 3.02
2 2100 3.02
3 2100 3.02
4 2100 3.02
5(1)‐‐
1 2460 3.54
2 2460 3.54
3 4300 6.19
1 800 1.15
2(1)‐‐
6 700 1.01
5 800 1.15
3 700 1.01
4 700 1.01
(gpm) (MGD) (gpm) (MGD) 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour 24-Hour 16-Hour Peak Hour
1 2,100 3.02
2 2100 3.02
3 2100 3.02
4 2100 3.02
5(1)‐‐
1 2460 3.54
2 2460 3.54
3 4300 6.19
1 800 1.15
2(1)‐‐
6 700 1.01
5 800 1.15
3 700 1.01
4 700 1.01
(1) Space provided for an additional pump if needed.
(2) RWCWRF Pump Station assumed to supply 700 gpm (1 MGD) to meet the MDD. 944 and RWCWRF Pump Station Supplies Pressure Zones: 750, 780, 815, and 944
(3) Space provided for an additional pump if needed.
(4) RWCWRF Pump Station 1,600 gpm max flow rate controlled by disinfection contact time and surge tank design.
8.10 2.7 5,351 8,027 16,054 944(2)4,920 7.1 859 1,123
Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
680 6,300 9.1 1,425 1,982 8.10 2.7 9,199 13,798
Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)
700 not applicable
3,313 4,969 9,939 1,607 (49) (5,019)2.7
8,456 16,913 662 (2,156) (10,613)8.10
4,920 7.1 567 660 8.10
not applicableRWCWRF
(2, 4)1,600 2.3 700
(11,134)
27,597 (2,899) (7,498) (21,297)
(3,107)(431)
Table D-8 Phase IIC (2050) Recycled Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump Station Pump Unit
Rated Capacity
Surplus / (Deficit) (gpm)
RWCWRF
(2, 4)
2.7 5,638
944(2)
680
1,600 2.3
6,300 9.1 861 1,227
Table D-7 Existing (2013) Recycled Distribution Pumping Analysis
Pump Station Pump Unit
Rated Capacity Firm Capacity Zone AAD
(gpm)
Zones
Supported
AAD (gpm)
PHD PF MDD PF
Max Day or Peak Hour Demand
(gpm)
Page 1 of 1