basin monitoring program task force - sawpa · 9/19/2017 · david jensen, cdm smith, inc. marissa...

11615 Sterling Ave., Riverside, CA 92503 • 951.354.4220 • www.sawpa.org

S A W P A SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY

BASIN MONITORING PROGRAM TASK FORCE Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2017

1:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

At SAWPA, 11615 Sterling Avenue, Riverside, CA 92503

AGENDA

1. Introductions

2. Public Comments

3. Approval of Aug 16, 2017 Meeting Summary

4. Formation of Consultant Review Committee - SAWPA

5. Triennial Ambient Water Quality Update – CDM Smith/DBSA

6. SAR Wasteload Allocation Model Update – Geoscience/Risk Sciences

7. So Cal Salinity Coalition Study Status – CDM Smith/DBSA/Risk Sciences

8. Future Meetings: October 18, 2017 change from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

discussion

9. Adjournment

http://www.sawpa.org/

K:\PROJECTS\PA-20 BASIN MONITORING PROG\MEETINGS\MINUTES\2017\8-16-2017\FINAL DRAFT BMP MEETING NOTES 8-16-17.DOC 1

M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y

Basin Monitoring Program Task Force

August 16, 2017

ATTENDEES: Ashley Gibson, YVWD Jesus Gastelum, EVMWD

Bobby Gustafson, City of Riverside Johnson Yeh, GeoScience

Cindy Li, Regional Board Joshua Aguilar, IEUA

David Jensen, CDM Smith, Inc. Marissa Flores-Acosta, SBMWD

Dennis Williams, GeoScience Mark Williams, GeoScience

Edgar Tellez Foster, CBWM Michael Cruikshank, DBSA

Edward Filadelfia, Riverside RWQCP Raul Arevalo, City of Corona

Fakhri Manghi, WMWD Robert Eland, Riverside RWQCP

Greg Herzog, City of Riverside PU Tim Moore, Risk Sciences

Greg Woodside, OCWD Mark Norton, SAWPA

Jayne Joy, EMWD Zyanya Blancas, SAWPA

Jeff Davis, SGPWA

Jennifer McMullin, City of Corona Phone: Al Javier , EMWD

Call to Order/Introductions The Basin Monitoring Program Task Force (Task Force) meeting was called to order at 1:33 p.m. at the Santa

Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) office located at 11615 Sterling Avenue, Riverside, California.

Brief introductions were made.

Public Comments There were no public comments.

Approval of June 13, 2017 Meeting Summary Meeting summary was approved with a minor modification.

Final 2016 Annual Report of Santa Ana River Water Quality – SAWPA Mark Norton reported that the Santa Ana River Water Quality Annual Report (Report) was finalized. Upon no

further comments from the Task Force, it was agreed to submit the final Report to the Regional Board.

Tim Moore, Risk Sciences, provided a summary of the changes that were made to the Report to prevent

accidently triggering a 303D impairment listing. He stated that a list was created of all the items that need

clarification in next year’s Report and will be brought up to the Task Force in January 2018.

Considering recent information, Mark Norton indicated that agenda items 5 and 6 are to be combined.

Supplemental Environmental Document & Economic Analysis Update – CDM Smith / SAR Wasteload Allocation Basin Plan Amendment Status – Risk Sciences/Regional Board Tim Moore, Risk Sciences, informed the Task Force that the Basin Plan Amendment to Revise the Chino South

Water Quality Objective for Nitrate was approved by Regional Board on August 4 and will now go to State

Board for final approval. As planned, the next process is to complete the Wasteload Allocation Basin Plan

Amendment.

It was discovered that the existing effluent limits for TIN and TDS in the current National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits can be reauthorized without amending the Basin Plan to adopt a new

Wasteload Allocation (WLA); and no allocation of assimilative capacity is required to reauthorize the existing

effluent limits for TIN/TDS in the current NPDES permits issued to Rialto and RIX facilities. A rationale for the

statements was provided to the Task Force in a two-page document from Risk Sciences, along with a

DRAFT


Comparison of Effluent Limits in 2004 and 2015 WLA Model Runs table. The tables show that the effluent

levels that were used in the 2004 and the 2015 for Scenario 8 are identical and in a couple of cases its slightly

lower. With this information, it was determined that a Supplement Environmental Document or Economic

Document are not required for a WLA.

Triennial Ambient Water Quality Update Presentation – CDM Smith, Inc. Joe LeClaire, Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (DBSA), indicated that comments to the draft results of the

Triennial Ambient Water Quality (AWQ) report are due by August 25, 2017 and upon review will then have the

final report to Regional Board by September 30.

Michael Cruikshank, DBSA, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the draft results of the AWQ. Cruikshank

briefly described DBSA’s process of obtaining the estimated volume-weighted AWQ in each groundwater

management zone. From the Groundwater Management Zone Boundaries and AWQ Objectives map it was

suggested that the contour maps of the bottom of aquifers should be updated since the ones that were used are

from the 1960-70s; new data from new wells have shown deeper aquifers. Discussion ensued regarding the

results of TDS and Nitrate data and changes in AWQ from 1996 to 2015.

As part of Task 1b, Update the physical model of Groundwater Management Zones (GMZ), DBSA was tasked

to pilot study the physical model of the Chino Basin GMZ to evaluate the effect of the update relative to the

AWQ results for 1996-2015. The results indicated that there was sufficient benefit to update the physical model

for other GMZs. The Task Force must now determine if the physical model is to be updated in the remainder of

the GMZs in the watershed in the 1999-2018 AWQ update.

SAR Wasteload Allocation Basin Plan Amendment Status – Geoscience Johnson Yeh, GeoScience, provided a PowerPoint presentation on TDS and TIN calibration results. The WLAM

boundaries has a total of 564 subareas were delineated including the 522 of the WLAM area. The variations in

the TDS vs time graphs reflect storm events that have lower TDS values for the Santa Ana River below Prado.

GeoScience will complete TDS/TIN recalibration of the WLAM. They will work with SAWPA staff, the Task

Force, and the Regional Board staff to specify range of portable discharge conditions and to identify percolation

ponds and retention basins where treated wastewater is regularly recharged to groundwater and where such

discharge are presently governed by permits issued by the Regional Board.

Tim Moore stated that he will work with GeoScience on the data request form to ensure that anticipated flows

needed for compliance are effectively considered and included in the WLAM.

Dewatering Project Permit Status from USACE – Regional Board/SAWPA The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) informed SAWPA that they will be submitting a check to

compensate for their share of modeling costs for the previous two years.

Southern California Salinity Coalition Study Status – CDM Smith/DBSA/Risk Sciences Joe LeClaire, DBSA, provided a PowerPoint presentation updating the Task Force on the preliminary results to

the TDS Trends Study, which is funded by the Southern California Salinity Coalition (SCSC). The Study will

determine what are the variables that are raising TDS levels and quantify the variables that cannot be managed

by the dischargers. Preliminary results from the pilot studies showed that Source TDS, state mandate

conservation, local conservation and Source Q. Discussion ensued regarding the variables that are

uncontrollable by the dischargers and how it has affected their individual discharges.

The goal is to have a draft report of this study to the SCSC Board at their September 7, 2017 meeting.

Future Meeting The next Basin Monitoring Program Task Force meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at

1:00 p.m. and Wednesday, October 18, 2017 1:00 p.m.

DRAFT


Adjournment 3:24 p.m.

DRAFT

Santa Ana River Wasteload Allocation Model Update

September 19, 2017

BASIN MONITORING PROGRAM TASK FORCE

2

Model DevelopmentExisting WLAM (R4)

WLAM Update

Expanded Area

• 564 subareas were delineated.• Each subarea consists of

• Stream segment,• Pervious land area, and• Impervious land area.

• They were delineated based on:• Topography• Drainage Patterns• Types of stream channels, and• Location of gaging stations and recharge basins9/19/2017

3

Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran -HSPF

9/19/2017

Precipitation

ET

Surface Runoff

Deep Percolation

Streambed Percolation

Infiltration

Interflow

• Comprehensive & Physically Based,

• Simulates ALL Water Cycle Components & Water Quality,

• Supported & Maintained by Federal Agencies (EPA & USGS),

• Established Standard Guidelines and Calibration Performance Criteria,

• Windows-Based Interface with Powerful Pre- & Post- Processors, and

• Software is Free.

4

Coupling Process of HSPF and OCWD Recharge Facilities Model (RFM)

9/19/2017

SAR Diversion

OCWD RFM

OutletPrado Inflow& Tributary

Streamflow to SAR (shown in

Yellow)

Step 1HSPF

Step 2OCWD RFM

Streamflow at OCWD

RFM Outlet

Step 3HSPF

Streamflow at SAR at Santa Ana

PradoDam

Recharge Basins

Calibration Process

5

• Adjust model parameters until the model provides a reasonable

match between the model-simulated and measured data.

• Lower zone nominal soil moisture storage,

• Base groundwater recession,

• Fraction of groundwater inflow to deep recharge,

• Fraction of remaining ET from baseflow,

• Interflow inflow parameter,

• Lower zone ET parameter,

• Function tables (FTABLE) which includes physical information (shape, depth,

width, slope, length, Manning Factor, and materials), and infiltration rates

for reaches of each sub-watershed, and

• Nitrogen reaction rate coefficient.

9/19/2017

6

Location of Streamflow Calibration Targets

9/19/2017

7

Location of TDS/TIN Calibration Targets

9/19/2017

Calibration Performance Criteria

8

Type of Flow Data R2 (Goodness-of-Fit) Calibration

Performance

Daily Flow R2 < 0.60 Poor

Daily Flow 0.60 < R2 < 0.70 Fair

Daily Flow 0.70 < R2 < 0.80 Good

Daily Flow R2 > 0.80 Very Good

Monthly Flow R2 < 0.65 Poor

Monthly Flow 0.65 < R2 < 0.75 Fair

Monthly Flow 0.75 < R2 < 0.85 Good

Monthly Flow R2 > 0.85 Very GoodSource: Donigian (2002)9/19/2017

9

Existing WLAM (R4)WLAM Update (HSPF)Daily Streamflow

SAR at MWD Crossing

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Mo

de

l-C

alcu

late

d D

aily

Str

eam

flo

w, c

fs

Measured Daily Streamflow, cfs

R4 – WY 1995 to 2006

R2 = 0.68

Fair

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Mo

de

l-C

alcu

late

d D

aily

Str

eam

flo

w, c

fs

Measured Daily Streamflow, cfs

HSPF – WY 2007 to 2016

R2 = 0.91

Very Good

9/19/2017

SAR at MWD Crossing

10

Existing WLAM (R4)WLAM Update (HSPF)Monthly Streamflow

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Mo

de

l-C

alcu

late

d M

on

thly

Str

eam

flo

w, c

fs

Measured Monthly Streamflow, cfs

R4 – WY 1995 to 2006

R2 = 0.91

Very Good

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Mo

de

l-C

alcu

late

d M

on

thly

Str

eam

flo

w, c

fs

Measured Monthly Streamflow, cfs

HSPF – WY 2007 to 2016

R2 = 0.97

Very Good

9/19/2017

Summary of Streamflow Calibration Performance

11

Gaging Station

Daily Streamflow Monthly Streamflow

2008 WLAM

(R4)

WY 1995-2006

WLAM Update

(HSPF)

WY 2007-2016

2008 WLAM

(R4)

WY 1995-2006

WLAM Update

(HSPF)

WY 2007-2016

San Timoteo Ck near Loma Linda Good Fair Good Fair

Warm Ck near San Bernardino Fair Fair Fair Very Good

Santa Ana River at E Street Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

Santa Ana River at MWD Crossing Fair Very Good Very Good Very Good

Temescal Ck at Main Street Poor Fair Good Poor

Chino Ck at Schaefer Avenue Fair Very Good Good Good

Cucamonga Ck near Mira Loma Poor Very Good Good Very Good

Santa Ana River into Prado Dam Fair Very Good Very Good Very Good

Santa Ana River at Santa Ana NA Poor NA Good

9/19/2017

Daily TDS at Santa Ana River at MWD Crossing

12

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Oct-94 Oct-96 Oct-98 Oct-00 Oct-02 Oct-04 Oct-06 Oct-08 Oct-10 Oct-12 Oct-14

Mo

del

-Cal

cula

ted

Dai

ly T

DS,

mg/

L

WLAM Update (Mean Residual = -0.4 mg/L) 2008 WLAM (Mean Residual = 16.4 mg/L)

Observed

Model-Calculated

9/19/2017

Summary of TDS/TIN Calibration Performance

13

Gaging Station

TDS, mg/L TIN, mg/L

2008 WLAM

(R4)

WY 1995-2006

WLAM Update

(HSPF)

WY 2006-2016

2008 WLAM

(R4)

WY 1995-2006

WLAM Update

(HSPF)

WY 2006-2016

Santa Ana River at

MWD Crossing16.4 -0.4 -0.45 -0.40

Santa Ana River

below Prado Dam20.7 -2.0 -0.07 -0.28

Santa Ana River at Imperial Highway

near AnaheimNA 7.8 NA -0.21

9/19/2017

Summary

14

• The WLAM was updated with recent data and recalibrated from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2016 (Water Years 2007 through 2016).

• The calibration results show:

• Good to very good performance at the majority of the streamflow gages .

• The streamflow calibration performance for the WLAM update is equal to or better than the 2008 WLAM at nearly all gages.

• TDS/TIN residuals from the WLAM update calibration are lower than the 2008 WLAM residuals for nearly all gages.

• The results indicate a satisfactory model calibration.

9/19/2017

Major Assumptions for Waste Load Allocation Scenarios

159/19/2017

Scenario Hydrology Land Use

MaximumDischarge

(Zero Recycled)

Planned Recycled / Discharge)

50% of Planned Recycled

A

WY 1950-2016

2012

X

B X

C X

D

General Plan(2040)

X

E X

F X

Discharge and Reuse Data

169/19/2017

City of CoronaCity of

Beaumont

City of Riverside

EVMWD SBVMWD WMWD

Facility WRF 1 RWQCPWWTP

001WWTP

002SNRC (City

Creek)WRCRW

Discharge(MGD)

Current

Design 11.5 4 46 8 8 0 14Max 11.4 3.30975 31.2 8 8 0 7.76Ave 3.4 2.9696 26.8 0.5 4.52 0 6.44Min 1.5 2.4232 21.8 0.5 4.5 0 5.22

2020

Design 11.5 46 12 12 7.5 14Max 11.5 33.8 12 12 7.5 10.3Ave 4.6 25 0.5 7 6.4 7Min 1.5 19 0.5 6.5 6 5.7

2040

Design 15 46 16.8 16.8 7.5 14Max 15 46 16.8 16.8 7.5 15.3Ave 8.5 22.5 0.5 14 6.4 10Min 1.5 19 0.5 13 6 8.5

Reuse of Recycled Water

(MGD)

Current

Max 7.1In house

only1.8 0.3 0.3 0 0

Ave 2.7In house

only0.9 0.2 0.2 0 0

Min 0In house

only0.6 0.2 0.2 0 0

2020Max 10 10 0.45 0.45 7.5 7Ave 2.7 4 0.3 0.3 6.4 3Min 0 1 0.2 0.2 6 0

2040Max 13.5 20 0.63 0.63 7.5 7Ave 3.5 16.5 0.42 0.42 6.4 3Min 0 3 0.2 0.2 6 0

Water Quality(mg/L)

TIN

Current Discharge Permit 10 6 / 3.6 10 13 NA NA 1012-mos. Average 5.5 / 5.2 4.34 4.5 2.5 NA NA 2.2

Est. 12 mos. Average in 2040 5.5 / 5.2 10 UnknownUnkno

wn6 2.2

TDS

Current Discharge Permit 700 / 770 400 / 300 650 700 700 NA 625

12-mos. Average 655 / 683 434 623 686 686 NA 529

Est. 12 mos. Average in 2040 655 / 683 650 UnknownUnkno

wn463 529

Discharge and Reuse Data

179/19/2017

EMWD IEUA City of Redlands City of San Bernardino YVWDFacility

Discharge(MGD)

Current

DesignMaxAveMin

2020

DesignMaxAveMin

2040

DesignMaxAveMin

Reuse of Recycled

Water(MGD)

CurrentMaxAveMin

2020MaxAveMin

2040MaxAveMin

Water Quality(mg/L)

TIN

Current Discharge Permit 12-mos. Average Est. 12 mos. Average in 2040

TDS

Current Discharge Permit

12-mos. Average

Est. 12 mos. Average in 2040

Evaluation of Wastewater Recharge in Percolation Ponds – Pilot Program

189/19/2017

• City of Redlands,• Coty of Corona,• IEUA, and• Dairy ponds in

Chino-North GMZ

19

QUESTIONS?

9/19/2017

Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.

Southern California Salinity Coalition

TDS Trends Study Update for the Basin Monitoring Program Task Force

September 19, 2017


Problem Statement

1. Evaluate the long-term trends for salinity in wastewater and recycled water

2. Assess how periodic droughts and various conservation measures may influence these trends

3. Primary Research Questions:

a. What portion of the increment from use (IFU) can be attributed to water conservation measures?

b. If trends of conservation measures continue, what portion of the IFU can be attributed to water conservation measures


18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

21.5

22

22.5

23

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Po

pu

lati

on

MW

DS

C S

up

pll

ies

(MA

FY

)

Local SuppliesImported SuppliesdPopulation

Conservation Measures

• Local and imported water supplies and population.

• The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2015)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017

TDS

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

Mg

/L)

Temecula Valley Sewershed

Source

Effluent

Influent

Temecula Valley Discharge Limit: 750 mg/L

Problem Statement

• Increment from use (IFU) typically ranges from 200 to 250 mg/L.

• IFU can drive effluent TDS above the discharge limit.

• How much of IFU is due to conservation measures?


Study Approach

• Deterministic Model

– The outcome of a deterministic / algebraic model is governed through relationships between a state and an event. In the TDS trends study, the WWTP influent TDS is estimated from a measured concentration of source water and salt load from indoor use.

• Statistical Analyses

– Explores the relationship between the dependent variable (WWTP influent TDS) and independent (explanatory) variables, e.g., source concentration, population, conservation factors, etc.


Salt Mass Load

• AWWARF (2006).

• Comprehensive review of the “problem of salinity in reclaimed water on a national level.”

• “When water passes through municipal systems, it gains salts (‘salt pickup’), typically adding 200-400 mg/L TDS.”


Salt Mass Load

• Aligning terminology:

TDS Contribution = Mass salt load (MSL) (mass/time)

TDS Gain = TDS increment from use (IFU) (mg/L)


Contributions to MSL from Indoor Use

– about 45 grams/capita/day excreted in urine

– about half of this is in the form of urea, a soluble organics compound, which degrades over time (0.05 pounds / capita / day)

– Urea is not measured as a component of TDS

– Nall and Sedlak (2013) report human excretion at 72.8 grams / capita / day

Human excretion ≈ 70 grams / capita / day (0.154 pounds / capita / day)


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

40455055606570758085

Incr

emen

t fr

om

Use

TD

S (m

g/L

)

Indoor Water Use (gpcd)

Salt Load = 0.17 pounds per capita per day

Salt Load = 0.15 pounds per capita per day

1980 Indoor Water Use(77 gcpd)

2016 Indoor Water Use(52 gcpd)

Increase in TDS from MSLs from Indoor Use

• Increment from use (IFU) TDS concentrations resulting from a decrease of indoor water use at a range of salt mass loads (MSLs)


Study areas

1. Eastern Municipal Water District - EMWD (Pilot Study)

2. Inland Empire Utilities Agency - IEUA

3. San Bernardino Municipal Water District - SBMWD

4. Riverside Public Utilities - RPU

5. Orange County Sanitation Department- OCSD

6. San Diego County Water Authority - SDCWA

7. Los Angeles County Sanitation District - LACSD


1. EMWD

EMWD Sewersheds

• Moreno Valley

• Perris Valley

• San Jacinto Valley

• Temecula Valley


1. EMWD: Population & Indoor Water Use

• 2007

– Est. population of 650,000

– 70 gpcd

• 2016


– 55 gpcd


1. EMWD: Deterministic Approach

• Increment of use:

– 2007: 250 mg/L

– 2016: 270 mg/L

• Influent ≥ Effluent suggesting no additional salt is being added to the system during the treatment process.

IFU: 250 mg/L

IFU: 270 mg/L


LOW FLOWREBATE

COMMERIAL PLUMBING RETROFITS

$ ↑ $ ↑

ULFT REBATES

$ ↑

HIGH-EFFICIENCYCLOTHES WASHERS

EMWD 10% WATER USE REDUCTION

$ ↑

HIGH-EFFICIENCYTOILET GIVEAWAY

$ ↑

HIGH-EFFICIENCYTOILET GIVEAWAY

STAGE 1: VOLUNARY 10%

WATER USE REDUCTION

$ ↑

EMWD TIERED-RATE

BEGINS

STAGE 2: MANDATORY 10%

WATER USE REDUCTION

EMWD LOOK TO RESTAURANTS TO MAKE EVERY DROP COUNT

EMWD SCHOOL GRANTSTO USE WATER WISELY

$ ↑ $ ↑

WRCOG PROGRAM:LOW INTEREST LOANS

FOR WATER CONSERVATIONIMPROVEMENTS

$ ↑ $ ↑ $ ↑ $ ↑ $ ↑

CLOTHES WASHERS/TOITETS/IRRIGATION CONTROLS

$ ↑

STAGE 3A:WATER SHORTAGE

CONTINGENCY PLAN

HIGH EFFICIENCY CLOTHES WASHERS/TOILETS

STAGE 4:28% MANDATORY

WATER USE REDUCTION

STAGE 4C:70% OUTDOOR USE REDUCTION

STAGE 4B:30% OUTDOOR USE REDUCTION

$ ↑

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Conservation Program and Incentives

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Wat

er U

se (

MG

D)

Po

pu

lati

on

Population and Water Use for EMWD Service Area

Population

Indoor Use


1. EMWD: Deterministic Approach

Cinf= (Masssource + MSL) / Qinf

• 2007


– 70 gpcd (No additional conservation model input)

• 2016


– 55 gpcd


1. EMWD: Statistical Approach

• MLA input variables

– Population***

– Source TDS***

– Influent Flow***

– State Mandate**

– PMDI**

– Source Flow

• IFU Difference: 55 mg/L


1. EMWD: Source Water Supply and Quality

• Constant groundwater supply over time

• Increased dependence of lower quality CRW during periods of drought especially significant in 2014


ClimateSource TDS and Drought

• Weymouth WTP

• Jensen WTP

• Diemer WTP

• Skinner

• Mills

• Castaic Lake

• Silverwood Lake

• Lake Mathews


1. EMWD: Perris Valley Influent Rolling Average

• Current discharge limits based upon 12-month rolling average

• Groundwater based upon 20-year rolling averages


Summary

• Previous studies

– AWWARF Study - Salt loads from indoor use

– Pacific Institute - Effects of historical and theoretical conservation measures on per capita indoor water use

– SCSC Study - Effects of drought and water conservation measures on WWTP influent water quality

• Observation data from groups of sewering agencies rather than individual WWTP is more reliable due to the following factors

– Population (city boundaries, sewershed boundaries)

– Operations can divert flows from plant to plant


Summary

• Quantify increase in IFU caused by conservation measures:

Sewershed Date Range Observed Deterministic Statistical

EMWD 2007 - 2016 20 mg/L 60 mg/L 55 mg/L

IEUA 1999 - 2016 70 mg/L 80 mg/L 90 mg/L

• Drought impacts both source water quality and an agency’s source(s) of supply.

basin monitoring program task force - sawpa · 9/19/2017 · david jensen, cdm smith, inc. marissa...

Documents