REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WATER ... Packages + Agend… · (NAACP) Awards Banquet to be held October 17, 2003. AYES: Directors Acosta, Goldsworthy, Murray, Robles,

Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 4 November 19, 2003

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

12621 E. 166th Street, Cerritos, California 90703

1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003

AGENDA Each item on the agenda, no matter how described, shall be deemed to include any appropriate motion, whether to adopt a minute motion, resolution, payment of any bill, approval of any matter or action, or any other action. Items listed as “For Information” or “For Discussion” may also be the subject of an “action” taken by the Board or a Committee at the same meeting. I. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. INVOCATION

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT

V. ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO AGENDA Determine the need to add items to the agenda. In order for the Board to add an item to the agenda it must make a determination that: (i). The item came to the attention of the Board after the posting of the agenda; (ii). That there is a need for immediate action to be taken by the Board. If these two tests are met, the Board may add the item in question to the agenda for consideration consistent with the provisions of the Brown Act.

VI. CONSENT CALENDAR

Consent Calendar items are considered routine by the Board of Directors and will be adopted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Board Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately immediately following action on the remaining items. A. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2003

Staff Recommendation: That the Board approve the Minutes as submitted.

B. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2003 Staff Recommendation: That the Board approve the Minutes as submitted. C. DEMANDS AND CONTRACTS Staff Recommendation: That the Board approve the Demands as submitted.


Committee Recommendation: The Finance Committee will review this item at its November 14, 2003 meeting and will make a recommendation to the Board.

D. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 Staff Recommendation: That the Board approve the Financial Statements as submitted.


E. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 Staff Recommendation: That the Board approve the Investment Report as submitted.


F. FINANCIAL AUDITORS REPORT Staff Recommendation: For information.


G. TRAVEL REQUEST – 2003 NATIONAL SALINITY MANAGEMENT AND DESALINATION, DECEMBER 8-9, 2003, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

Staff Recommendation: That the Board authorize the attendance of Interested Directors and one staff member to the 2003 National Salinity Management and Desalination Summit, December 8-9, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Committee Recommendation: The Water Resources Committee reviewed this item on November 13, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.

H. ABANDON WRD’S SANTA FE SPRINGS MONITORING WELL Staff Recommendation: For information.

Committee Recommendation: The Water Resources Committee reviewed this item on November 13, 2003 and recommended bringing this item to the Board on Consent Calendar for information.

VII. SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM – CITY OF COMMERCE WELL 4

PROJECT AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Staff Recommendation: That the Board authorize the General Manager to advertise for bids for construction of the Safe Drinking Water Program Treatment Facility for Commerce Well Number 4. Committee Recommendation: The Groundwater Clean-up Committee reviewed this item on October 6, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.


VIII. SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM – CITY OF COMMERCE WELL 4 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADOPTION Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt a Negative Declaration for Commerce Well Number 4 Treatment Project. Committee Recommendation: The Groundwater Clean-up Committee reviewed this item on October 6, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.

IX. SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM – CITY OF COMMERCE WELL 4 TREATMENT PROJECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMMERCE AND WRD Staff Recommendation: That the Board execute an agreement with the City of Commerce, upon approval by District Counsel as to form, for an amount not to exceed $300,000 for a treatment system to remove VOCs from Commerce Well Number 4. Committee Recommendation: The Water Resources Committee reviewed this item on November 13, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.

X. PERMISSION LETTER FOR NEIGHBOR’S WALL ORDUNA DESALTER PROPERTY Staff Recommendation: That the Board authorize staff to issue a letter of consent to Mr. Tran. Committee Recommendation: The Water Resources Committee reviewed this item on November 13, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.

XI. SALT MANAGEMENT GUIDE RESEARCH PROJECT Staff Recommendation: For discussion. Committee Recommendation: The Water Resources Committee recommends that the Board approve WRD’s participation as a collaborating utility on the research project entitled Salt Management Guide and contribute $3,000 toward the effort.

XII. SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM UPDATE Staff Recommendation: For information. Committee Recommendation: For information.

XIII. SELECTION OF BOND COUNSEL Staff Recommendation: Concurs with the Ad Hoc Committee on Bond Counsel recommendation. Committee Recommendation: The Ad Hoc Bond Counsel Committee recommends that the Board authorize a contract for bond counsel services with Orrick Herrington &Sutcliffe LLP.

XIV. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-691 – A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PARS) TRUST AND APPOINTING A PLAN ADMINISTRATOR Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt resolution No. 03-691.


XV. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

XVI. DISTRICT COUNSEL REPORT

XVII. DIRECTORS’ REPORTS XVIII. WRD BOARD MEETING DATES

A. December 17, 2003 – 1:30 P.M. – Board of Directors Meeting B. January 7, 2004– 1:30 P.M. – Board of Directors Meeting C. January 21, 2004 – 1:30 P.M. – Board of Directors Meeting

XIX. CLOSED SESSION A. Existing litigation per Government Code §54956.9 (a)

1. Buford Sonny Walker vs Water Replenishment District of Southern California, et al.; Case No. BC276152

2. WRD vs Kernview Oil Corporation, Pacific Energy Resources, Sunset Pipeline and Terminalling, Inc., Titan Energy, Inc., Trio Petroleum, Inc., Danex Aggregate Materials, Inc., and DOES 1-30. Case No. BC286475

3. Ronald P. Flores vs. Water Replenishment District of Southern California, et al.; California Court of Appeal, Case No. B165755

B. Anticipated litigation per Government Code §54956.9 (c), One Case C. Consideration of appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or

dismissal of public employee per Government Code §54957 Position Title: General Manager

D. Labor Negotiations per Government Code §54957.6 Negotiator: Arnoldo Beltran Bargaining Group: American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Discussion: Terms and conditions for Memorandum of Understanding for bargaining group

E. Conference with real property negotiator per Government Code §54956.8 Real Property: Northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Bloomfield in the City of Norwalk, California; Parcel No. APN 8025-003-004 Negotiating Parties: J. Arnoldo Beltran

Stadium Properties LLC Under Negotiation: Price, terms, and conditions for possible purchase

XX. ADJOURNMENT

Agenda posted by Marcia Forkos, Deputy Secretary, November 14, 2003. In compliance with ADA requirements, this document can be made available in alternative formats upon request.

MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2003 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

A regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Water Replenishment District was

held on October 15, 2003, at 1:38 P.M. in the District office at 12621 E. 166th Street,

Cerritos, California. President Willard H. Murray, Jr. called the meeting to order.

Deputy Secretary Marcia A. Forkos recorded the minutes.

I. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

The President declared a quorum of Directors was present, which in

addition to himself included Directors Pat Acosta, Robert W. Goldsworthy,

Albert Robles, and Norm Ryan. Also participating in the meeting were

General Manager Bruce Mowry, Assistant General Manager and District

Engineer Robb Whitaker, and District Counsels J. Arnoldo Beltrán and

Edward Casey.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Ms. Hazel Scotto, Downey League of Women Voters, led the Pledge of

Allegiance.

III. INVOCATION Director Ryan gave the Invocation

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Donna Varner, West Basin Water Association (WBWA), stated that

the regional conjunctive use facilitated process has been meeting and the

WBWA appreciated the attendance of different representatives from WRD

including staff, counsel, and directors. She noted that a proposed

resolution was circulated to all attendees and it was hoped that all

agencies would approve the resolution before the end of October.

Ms. Varner wanted to know what the status was of the resolution and

when the Board expects to take action on it.

Board of Directors Meeting Page 2 of 11 October 15, 2003

District Counsel Casey stated that discussions have been held with the Ad

Hoc Conjunctive Use Committee. Director Goldsworthy stated that a

special board meeting may be called next week to discuss this item so

that the resolution may be considered prior to the next Conjunctive Use

Workgroup meeting.

V. ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO AGENDA President Murray requested that an item be added to the agenda, that

there was an immediate need to take action to discuss this item, and that

the need came subsequent to the posting of the agenda. Upon consulting

with District Counsel Beltrán on Brown Act requirements, and by roll call

vote, it was

RESOLVED: That the Board determines that there is a need to take immediate action to discuss and act upon the item concerning an invitation from the Long Beach National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Awards Banquet to be held October 17, 2003. AYES: Directors Acosta, Goldsworthy, Murray, Robles, Ryan NOES: None

President Murray stated that this item will be discussed under Agenda

Item X.A.

VI. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 2003 This item was taken off the Consent Calendar.

B. DEMANDS AND CONTRACTS C. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2003 D. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2003 E. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-687 -

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 18 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.


18), AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA APPROVING AND ACCEPTING THE NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES RESULTING FROM ANNEXATION OF L143-00 (PROJECT 193-1100) TO COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1687

F. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-688- A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ACTING IN BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL FUND, LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND THE GOVERNING BODIES OF GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA APPROVING AND ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES RESULTING FROM ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 - “ANNEXATION NO. 54 Director Goldsworthy requested that Agenda Item VI.A be taken off the

Consent Calendar.

By roll call vote, it was

RESOLVED: That the Board approves the Consent Calendar of the meeting of October 15, 2003, as amended. AYES: Directors Acosta, Goldsworthy, Murray, Robles, Ryan NOES: None

VI.A. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 2003 Director Goldsworthy recommended changes to page 3 of the minutes of the

regular meeting of October 1, 2003.

Upon a motion duly made by Director Goldsworthy, seconded by Director

Ryan, and unanimously carried, it was

RESOLVED: That the Board approves the minutes of the regular meeting of October 1, 2003 as amended.


VII. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER UPDATE General Manager Bruce Mowry stated that the District had reviewed

alternative workers’ compensation carriers as premiums have increased

dramatically. The Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers

Authority (ACWA JPIA) is able to provide the appropriate coverage at a

more reasonable rate. An ACWA JPIA representative was sent to review

the District’s safety policies, etc. and had recommended that a Back to

Work Program be implemented to be considered by the ACWA JPIA

Executive Committee for coverage.

The Administrative Committee at its October 8th meeting reviewed a

generic Back to Work Program that ACWA had provided. The Committee

recommended that the necessary refinements to the Program be put in

place to meet the District’s needs and that it be adopted by the Board.

By roll call vote, and unanimously approved, it was

RESOLVED: That the Board approves the adoption of a Back To Work Program to be refined by District Counsel as required by ACWA JPIA Workers’ Compensation Plan for consideration of workers compensation insurance coverage. AYES: Directors Acosta, Goldsworthy, Murray, Robles, Ryan NOES: None

VIII. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-689 – A RESOLUTION OF

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SETTING FORTH NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF BIDS RECEIVED BY THE DISTRICT

General Manager Mowry stated that Resolution No. 03-689 will address

notification of Directors regarding consistency of results of procurement

bids received by staff.


By roll call vote, and unanimously approved, Resolution No. 03-689 was

adopted.

RESOLUTION NO. 03-689

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

SETTING FORTH NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF BIDS RECEIVED BY THE DISTRICT

(Reference is hereby made to Resolution No. 03-689 in the Draft Resolution file and by this reference is incorporated herein and included a part hereof as though fully set forth at length.)

AYES: Directors Acosta, Goldsworthy, Murray,

Robles, Ryan NOES: None

IX. SELECTION OF BOND COUNSEL Director Ryan requested Assistant Controller Laura Doud to give an

overview of process that Fieldman Rolapp & Associates, the District’s

financial advisors, had undertaken in the selection of a bond counsel.

Ms. Doud stated that staff was not involved in the process of selection of

bond counsel. She noted that Fieldman Rolapp & Associates had sent the

request for qualifications (RFQ) out and did the screening process, as part

of their scope of work. Staff attended the October 3rd bid opening and was

provided the list of submissions and copies of the proposals.

Mr. Tom De Mars, Principal at Fieldman Rolapp and Associates and

Mr. Dan Wiles, Vice President and General Counsel of the firm provided a

comprehensive report on the steps they had undertaken in making

recommendations for bond counsel. Mr. De Mars noted that the Thomson

Financial report had been used to assist in the ranking of the candidates.

He stated that not only had requests for proposals been sent out, but that

a notice was published regarding the request for proposal. Mr. De Mars


said that he and Mr. Wiles had narrowed the candidates down to three –

Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott, LLP; Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP;

and Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP. After a thorough review, they then

recommended that the Board hire Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP as

bond counsel.

Director Robles commended Mr. De Mars and Mr. Wiles on their

thoroughness but questioned how they narrowed it down to the final three

candidates and how they came about recommending Orrick. He noted

that Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott, LLP had the lower price.

Mr. De Mars stated that Orrick had more background in the water

assessment arena and the single source revenue agency. He also noted

that they had a lot of groundwater basin experience.

Direct Robles stated that it is very important that the bond counsel is

independent of the financial advisors and that it has an allegiance to the

Board. Mr. De Mars noted that the final decision would be made by the

Board and the bond counsel would be working for them.

Director Ryan stated that he felt that the process used by Fieldman

Rolapp & Associates was credible and that the Board should accept their

recommendation of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. He then made a

motion to hire Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP as bond counsel, as

recommended by the Fieldman Rolapp & Associates. President Murray

seconded the motion.

Director Acosta stated that she would like more time to review the

candidates and to make a decision. She made a substitute motion to

defer this item to a future meeting. Director Goldsworthy seconded the

motion.


Director Robles stated his concerns in the process of selecting the

financial advisors and, now, the bond counsel. Director Ryan stated that

he felt that the Board should go forward in accepting the recommendation

of the financial advisors.

Director Acosta made a substitute motion recommending that the Ad Hoc

Bond Counsel Committee further review this item and then made a

recommendation to the Board.

Upon a motion duly made by Director Acosta, seconded by Director

Goldsworthy, and by a roll call vote, it was

RESOLVED: That the Board postpone selection of bond counsel until the Ad Hoc Bond Counsel Committee has had time to review the candidates and to provide its recommendation to the Board.

AYES: Directors Acosta, Goldsworthy, and Robles NOES: Directors Murray and Ryan

X. AWARD CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS OUTREACH AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR WRD PROGRAMS

President Murray stated that this item will be deferred to next month’s

meeting.

X.A SUBSEQUENT NEED ITEM – LONG BEACH NAACP President Murray stated that Frank Clark of the Long Beach Water

Commission extended an invitation for the District to purchase a table at

the Long Beach National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People (NAACP) Award Banquet to be held October 17th honoring Long

Beach Mayor Beverly O’Neill. The table costs $750.00 for 10 people.


Director Robles made a motion to purchase a table for 10 for the Long

Beach NAACP Awards Banquet but that the participation is limited to

WRD Directors and spouses and WRD staff. Director Goldsworthy

seconded.

Director Ryan made a substitute motion that participation be extended to

WRD Directors and spouses and WRD staff, and after that has been

exhausted, to extend the invitation to individuals upon a determination that

the District’s best interests are in mind. Director Robles seconded.

By roll call vote, and unanimously carried, it was

RESOLVED: That the Board approves purchase of a table for 10 to the Long Beach NAACP Awards Banquet, October 17, 2003, at a cost of $750.00.

XI. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

General Manager Mowry stated that the District is in receipt of a $2,000 grant

from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for its educational partnership

program. He commended Public Affairs Representative Albert Frias for all his

efforts in securing this grant. Dr. Mowry stated that a groundwater tour was also

conducted for some senior students of the Long Beach City College. He also

informed everyone that the Water Environment Federation Technical and Exhibit

and Conference (WEFTEC) was held October 11-15th in Los Angeles.

XII. DISTRICT COUNSEL REPORT Deferred to closed session.

XIII. DIRECTORS’ REPORTS/COMMITTEE REPORTS Director Robles stated that at the last Board meeting, the Board was informed

that there were 16 old computers that the District would like to donate. He had


since found out that all the computers were gone and would like to know what

happened to them and if there were licensing issues that need to be addressed.

Director Goldsworthy thanked everyone who had condoled with him and his

family with the death of his mother.

Director Ryan thanked the Board and staff for the flower arrangement sent to his

wife upon the birth of their son, Mason.

President Murray expressed his condolences to Director Goldsworthy on the

death of his mother and stated that the Board will adjourn in her memory.

XIV. WRD BOARD MEETING DATES A. October 27, 2003 – 1:30P.M. – Special Board Meeting /CIP Workshop B. November 5, 2003 – 1:30 P.M.– WRD Board of Directors Meeting C. November 19, 2003 – 1:30 P.M. – WRD Board of Directors Meeting D. December 3, 2003 – 1:30 P.M. – WRD Board of Directors Meeting

The December 3rd Board meeting was cancelled due to the ACWA Fall

Conference and the Board will just meet at its regularly scheduled meeting on

December 17, 2003 at 1:30 P.M.

XV. CLOSED SESSION A. Existing litigation per Government Code §54956.9

1. Buford Sonny Walker vs Water Replenishment District of Southern California, et al.; Case No. BC276152 2. WRD vs. Kernview Oil Corporation, Pacific Energy Resources,

Sunset Pipeline and Terminalling, Inc., Titan Energy, Inc., Trio Petroleum, Inc., Danex Aggregate Materials, Inc., and DOES 1-30. Case No. BC286475

3. Ronald P. Flores vs. Water Replenishment District of Southern California, et al.; California Court of Appeal, Case No. B165755

B. Anticipated litigation per Government Code §54956.9 (b): One Case Anticipated litigation per Government Code §54956.9 (c): Two Cases


C. Consideration of appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of public employee per Government Code §54957

Position Title: General Manager Negotiating Parties: Bruce Mowry (District Negotiator) and Terry

D. Labor Negotiations per Government Code §54957.6 Negotiator: Arnoldo Beltrán Bargaining Group: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Discussion: Terms and conditions for Memorandum of Understanding for bargaining group

E. Conference with real property negotiator per Government Code §54956.8 Real Property: Northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Bloomfield in the City of Norwalk, California; Parcel No. APN 8025-003-004 Negotiating Parties: J. Arnoldo Beltrán and Stadium Properties LLC Under Negotiation: Price, terms, and conditions for possible purchase The Board went into closed session. The Board reconvened in open

session.

For Agenda Item XV.A.1, XV.A.2, and XV.A.3, no action was taken.

For Agenda Item XV.B under Anticipated litigation per Government Code

§54956.9 (c), Three cases. Two cases were reviewed. As to the first case, a

status report was given, consensus was reached, and further instructions were

given. As to the second case, no action was taken.

For Agenda Item XV.C, the Board reached a consensus with Director Robles

dissenting, and further instructions were given to District Counsel.

For Agenda Item XV.D, further instructions were given.

For Agenda Item XV.E, a status report was provided, consensus was reached

with Director Robles dissenting, and further instructions were given to District

Counsel.


President Murray announced that there would be a special Board meeting

Thursday, October 23rd at 12:00 noon.

President Murray also announced that an Ad Hoc Bond Counsel Committee has

been created with Director Ryan as the Chairman and Director Goldsworthy as

member.

XVI. ADJOURNMENT President Murray asked if there was any further business to come before

the Board and there being none, the meeting was adjourned in memory of

Leota Goldsworthy, mother of Director Goldsworthy.

_____________________________

President

ATTEST:

___________________________

Secretary

MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2003 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

A special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Water Replenishment District

was held on October 23, 2003, at 12:05 P.M. in the District office at 12621

E.166th Street, Cerritos, California. President Willard H. Murray, Jr. called the

meeting to order and presided. Deputy Secretary Marcia A. Forkos recorded the

minutes.

I. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

The President declared a quorum of Directors was present, which

in addition to himself included Directors Pat Acosta, Robert W.

Goldsworthy, and Albert Robles. Director Norm Ryan was

excused. Also participating in the meeting were Assistant General

Manager and District Engineer Robb Whitaker and District Counsel

Ed Casey.

II. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Jim Glancy, Chairman of the WRD Technical Advisory

Committee (TAC) stated that the TAC met yesterday and there was

a healthy discussion regarding a review of the capital projects

identified in the Strategic Plan. He noted that a project review

flowchart was developed by WRD staff and the TAC to establish a

process of review and approval of capital projects. He stated that

significant progress is being made and he would like to complement

WRD staff and appreciated their hard work.

Mr. Glancy stated that after the meeting, it was the TAC’s

recommendation to request that the Board defer its October 27th

workshop on the capital improvement projects (CIP) to allow them a

reasonable opportunity to review the capital projects, make their

Special Board of Directors Meeting Page 2 of 4 October 23, 2003

recommendations, and avoid the confusion and friction that has

developed in the past regarding the CIP.

Director Goldsworthy clarified that, as a member of the Ad Hoc

Strategic Plan/CIP Committee, the workshop on Monday,

October 27 will be a discussion and evaluation of the CIP process.

He noted that there will be follow-up workshops to discuss projects

in further detail. In general, projects identified in the Strategic Plan

will be introduced to the Board and public at the workshops. Based

on the information presented by staff, the Board will determine

which projects merit further consideration for possible inclusion in

the CIP. Those projects will be forwarded to the TAC for detailed

review. Upon the TAC’s completion of their review, they will

provide a recommendation that will be brought to the Board at

subsequent workshops. This recommendation will be considered

as the Board decides whether to include the project in the CIP.

Mr. Glancy thanked Mr. Goldsworthy for the clarification and noted

that more work still needs to be done and the TAC should be

considered as auxiliary staff members who will be able to provide

other perspectives on these projects.

Director Acosta requested that the TAC, thru Mr. Glancy, allow the

Board to go through this process of hearing an overview of these

projects and to hold off their questions until after that.

Director Robles added that although there may be disagreement on

the merits of specific projects, it is important that the TAC provide a

detailed review and recommendation of projects prior to including

them in the CIP.


III. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-690 – A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF THE CENTRAL AND WEST COAST BASIN CONJUNCTIVE USE WORKING GROUP

District Counsel Ed Casey gave a presentation on the overview of

the conjunctive use facilitated process, identifying the facilitator, the

reason for the facilitated process, the participants, and the need for

the resolution. Mr. Casey stated that adopting the resolution will

show good faith support for the process.

Mr. Casey recommended a couple of changes to the draft

resolution provided by the facilitators, Robert and Martin Rauch.

Discussion followed.

Upon a motion duly made by Director Robles, seconded by Director

Goldsworthy, and unanimously carried, Resolution No. 03-690 was

adopted as amended.


A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF THE CENTRAL AND WEST COAST BASIN CONJUNCTIVE USE WORKING GROUP

(Reference is hereby made to Resolution No. 03-690 in the Draft Resolution file and by this reference is incorporated herein and included a part hereof as though fully set forth at length.)

Director Goldsworthy stated that this was a good idea and Director

Acosta concurred. She added that this resolution will keep the

momentum going and the process running smoothly with everything

upfront.


Mr. Glancy added that the City of Lakewood and the Central and

West Basin Water Associations have adopted the resolution without

amendments. Central and West Basin Municipal Water Districts

are scheduled to adopt the resolution at their meetings on Monday,

October 27, 2003.

IV. ADJOURNMENT

President Murray asked if there was any further business to come

before the Board and there being none, the meeting was

adjourned.

_____________________________

President

ATTEST:

_____________________

Secretary

AGENDA ITEM NO. VI.C

DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2003

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: ROBB WHITAKER, P.E., GENERAL MANAGER

SUBJECT: DEMANDS AND CONTRACTS

At the request of the Finance Committee, the following items are attached: the Demand’s List for the period of October 7th to November 7th, 2003, a copy of the Demand’s List sorted by vendor with an additional column showing fiscal year-to-date payments, a list of contracts under $25K, and a list of contracts equal to/over $25K. Below is a summary of the total demands for the period stated above: FUND TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS Replenishment Fund $ 2,080,903.86 Clean Water Fund $ 160,253.04 Total Demands $ 2,241,156.90 STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

That the Board approve the Demands as submitted.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

The Finance Committee will review this item at its November 14, 2003 meeting and will make a recommendation to the Board.

Board of DirectorsWater Replenishment District of Southern California

Submitted herewith for action by the Board of Directors are the following demands for the period ending November 7th, 2003.

Replenishment Clean WaterCheck # Payee Description Total Fund Fund

DD ALBERT ROBLES DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 2,243.00 2,130.85 112.15 DD NORM RYAN DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 2,588.66 2,459.23 129.43 DD PATRICIA ACOSTA DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 2,093.58 1,988.90 104.68 DD ROBERT W. GOLDSWORTHY DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 2,038.00 1,936.10 101.90 DD WILLARD H. MURRAY, JR. DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 1,473.22 1,399.56 73.66 DD AFSCME LOCAL 1902 UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENT 838.00 728.03 109.97 DD AFSCME LOCAL 1902 UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENT 871.52 778.98 92.54 DD CALPERS L-T CARE PROGRAM PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENT 391.38 371.82 19.56 DD CALPERS L-T CARE PROGRAM PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENT 70.16 66.66 3.50 DD CALPERS L-T CARE PROGRAM PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENT 195.69 185.91 9.78 DD CALPERS L-T CARE PROGRAM PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENT 230.77 219.24 11.53 DD COURT TRUSTEE PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENT 352.00 334.40 17.60 DD EDD STATE TAX PAYMENT 3,415.35 2,974.80 440.55 DD EDD STATE TAX PAYMENT 3,512.60 3,151.32 361.28 DD EMPLOYEE PAYROLL SALARY EXPENSE 55,666.42 48,435.67 7,230.75 DD EMPLOYEE PAYROLL SALARY EXPENSE 65,769.38 58,061.11 7,708.27 DD INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FEDERAL TAX PAYMENT 18,994.02 16,491.34 2,502.68 DD INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FEDERAL TAX PAYMENT 19,480.40 17,503.88 1,976.52 DD INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 941 3rd QT FED TAX RETURN 1,048.66 996.23 52.43 DD NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT DEFERRED COMP 4,402.17 3,420.77 981.40 DD NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT DEFERRED COMP 4,402.17 3,619.14 783.03 DD NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT DEFERRED COMP 700.00 665.00 35.00 DD PERS PERS PAYMENT 15,832.79 13,606.65 2,226.14 DD PERS PERS PAYMENT 16,184.21 14,290.80 1,893.41 DD CENTRAL BASIN MW DISTRICT 08/03 CONNECTION FEE 6,000.00 6,000.00 - DD WEST BASIN MW DISTRICT 08/03 WATER PURCHASES 1,068,485.58 1,068,485.58 -

15499 AGWA FY 03/04 MEMBERSHIP DUES 1,000.00 950.00 50.00 15500 AIRGAS WEST, INC. 23A: HAZ MTRL CHARGE 47.04 - 47.04 15501 ALLEN'S PRESS CLIPPING BUREAU CLIPPINGS FOR 09/03 316.52 300.69 15.83 15502 BRIAN J. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 09/03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,639.90 3,457.91 181.99 15504 CARPI & CLAY 08/03 LEG ADV SERVICE - FEDERAL 4,583.33 4,354.16 229.17 15505 CHEVRON 11A: FUEL CHARGES 179.93 179.93 - 15506 EMCA CLERK (US POSTAL SERV.) POSTAGE USAGE 35.70 33.92 1.78 15507 ERHART'S CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 266.30 252.99 13.31 15508 F&M BANK: CC PAYMENT DIR CC CHARGES 1,618.74 1,537.81 80.93 15509 GENERAL ALARM SERVICES 10/03 ALARM SERVICE & RPLM 148.47 141.05 7.42 15510 GEOTECH ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIP. 04A: MISC SUPPLIES 2,627.87 2,627.87 - 15511 I.S. BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. 11B: PRINTING 914.86 914.86 - 15512 LONG BEACH, CITY OF 08/03 WATER PURCHASES 185,189.20 185,189.20 - 15513 LOS ANGELES TIMES 11A: JOB AD 1,175.00 1,175.00 - 15514 NORWALK PRINTING SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 707.96 672.56 35.40 15515 PSOMAS & ASSOCIATES 30A: PROF SERVICE END 8/28/03 18,599.32 18,599.32 - 15516 ROSE & KINDEL 09/03 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 10,000.00 9,500.00 500.00 15517 BOART LONGYEAR COMPANY 11A: MISC WELL SUPPLIES 37.73 37.73 -

November 14, 2003

Page 1 of 3


15518 SOLINST CANADA LTD. 23A: MATERIAL SUPPLIES 83.01 83.01 - 15519 SUMMIT BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.28 21.17 1.11 15520 UNION 76 11A & 23A: FUEL CHARGES 56.52 56.52 - 15521 VERIO 10/03 INTERNET SERVICE 1,087.00 1,032.65 54.35 15522 VERIZON WIRELESS 10/03 CELL PHONE 739.77 702.78 36.99 15523 WEST GROUP 06A: ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 289.00 - 289.00 15524 WILLIAMS MEDICAL GROUP, INC. TEST-MED VACCINATION SERVICE 745.00 707.75 37.25 15525 ASSOC. OF CA. WATER AGENCIES REGISTRATION FEE 20.00 19.00 1.00 15526 ADVANCED DOC. SOLUTIONS SCAN, STORE & RETRIEVE SOFTW 17,563.28 16,685.12 878.16 15527 AIRGAS WEST, INC. 23A: HAZ MTRL CHARGE 103.93 46.18 57.75 15528 ARLENE BOATRIGHT RETIREE MEDICAL REIMB 302.93 287.78 15.15 15529 BARBARA ANN BAXTER RETIREE MEDICAL REIMB 524.33 498.11 26.22 15530 BELTRAN & MEDINA 09/03 LEGAL SERVICE 58,069.31 55,165.84 2,903.47 15531 NAVIGANT CONSULTING,,INC. 23A: PROF SERVICE THRU 09/03 440.00 440.00 - 15533 COSTCO BUSINESS DELIVERY OFFICE SUPPLIES 376.63 357.80 18.83 15534 DIGITAL DOCUMENT CONNECTION DOCUMENT IMAGING HARDWARE 8,635.00 8,203.30 431.70 15535 ECO RESOURCES, Inc. 02A: 07/03 OPER & MAINT 28,292.56 - 28,292.56 15536 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS 01A: PHONE CHARGE 30.88 30.88 - 15537 MWH LABORATORIES LAB CHARGES 2,158.00 2,158.00 - 15538 NATIONAL WTR RESEARCH INST. 05A: VALUATION GRNWTR 37.95 37.95 - 15539 PACIFIC BELL 02A: 09/03 PHONE CHARGE 110.25 - 110.25 15540 PROF. PUBLICATIONS, INC. ENG. REFERENCE MANUAL 241.48 229.41 12.07 15541 R. FAIR & ASSOCIATES 09/03 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 5,000.00 4,750.00 250.00 15543 VAN'S CUSTOM WOODWORKING OFFICE REPAIR & MAINT SERVICE 100.00 95.00 5.00 15544 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 01A: 10/03 PHONE CHARGE 1,464.99 1,401.78 63.21 15545 SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON 01A: 09/03 ENERGY USAGE 591.22 591.22 - 15546 SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON 02A: 09/03 ENERGY USAGE 8,309.51 - 8,309.51 15547 ACWA 10/03 EAP FEE 194.56 184.84 9.72 15548 ACWA SERVICES CORP. 11/03 MED/DEN/LIFE PREMIUM 23,559.30 22,394.54 1,164.76 15549 APEX BUILDING MAINT. 10/03 JANITORIAL SERVICE 695.00 660.25 34.75 15550 CA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOC. CONFERENCE EXPENSES 420.00 399.00 21.00 15552 CERRITOS MINI STORAGE 11/03 STORAGE B013 & B014 485.00 460.75 24.25 15553 COLORADO RIVER WTR USERS ASS REG FEE FOR 03 ANNUAL MTG- AR 200.00 190.00 10.00 15554 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 2 02A: 11/03 BRINE PIPELINE 3,664.00 - 3,664.00 15555 DANNY L. GLASGOW RETIREE MEDICAL REIMB 333.44 316.77 16.67 15556 EARTHLINK INC. 10/03 INTERNET SERVICE 23.95 22.75 1.20 15557 ECO RESOURCES, Inc. 02A: CHEMICAL SUPPLIES 20,481.63 - 20,481.63 15558 INTER-TEL NETSOLUTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 116.37 110.55 5.82 15560 LONG BEACH, CITY OF 09/03 WATER PURCHASE 251,888.70 251,888.70 - 15561 LOS ANGELES TIMES NEWSPAPER 9/29/03-11/24/03 39.92 37.92 2.00 15562 MARTIN E WHELAN. JR. 11/03 MEDICAL PREMIUM 749.42 711.95 37.47 15563 MWH LABORATORIES 09/03 LAB CHARGES 76,940.00 76,724.00 216.00 15564 NORWALK PRINTING SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 59.54 56.56 2.98 15565 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 10/03 ENERGY USAGE 1,072.76 1,019.12 53.64 15566 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 11/03 STD/LTD PREMIUM 1,600.42 1,520.40 80.02 15567 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN OFFICE SUPPLIES 154.32 146.61 7.71 15568 UC CENTER FOR WTR RESOURCES REGISTRATION FEE - TJ 250.00 250.00 - 15569 WATERLOO HYDROGEOLOGIC 11B: GRNDWTR QTY FOFTWARE 315.00 315.00 - 15570 XO CORPORATION PHONE 10/15/03-11/14/03 367.74 349.35 18.39 15573 ACWA SERVICES CORPORATION 10/03 MED/DEN/LIFE PREMIUM 21,782.98 20,707.03 1,075.95 15574 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 10/03 WATER SERVICE 14.00 13.30 0.70 15575 CARPI & CLAY 09/03 LEG. SERVICES - FEDERAL 4,583.33 4,354.16 229.17 15576 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. COMPUTER SUPPLIES 186.19 176.88 9.31 15578 DELL ACCOUNT DELL POWEREDGE SERVERS 8,157.76 7,749.87 407.89 15579 EAGLE AERIAL IMAGING 10A: AERIAL DISTRICT PHOTOS 5,131.06 3,591.74 1,539.32 15580 ECO RESOURCES, Inc. 02A: 09/03 OPER & MAINT 14,146.28 - 14,146.28 15581 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION TRANSPORATION CHARGES 80.67 79.52 1.15 15582 KINKO'S INC. 05A: PRINTING 89.65 89.65 - 15583 LONG BEACH, CITY OF 01A: HAZ. MTRL DISCLOSURE FEE 613.50 613.50 - 15584 MCI WORLDCOM COMM. PHONE 9/15/03-10/14/03 56.11 53.30 2.81 15585 POSTMASTER BUSINESS REPLY MAIL 150.00 142.50 7.50 15586 PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE USAGE 1,015.00 964.25 50.75

Page 2 of 3


15587 SEPARATION PROCESSES, INC. 02A: 09/03 PROF. SERVICE 5,041.18 - 5,041.18 15588 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 10/03 ENERGY USAGE (A4022) 1,709.33 1,623.86 85.47 15589 UNION DEVELOPMENT CO INC 11/03 BUILDING RENT 9,249.45 8,786.98 462.47 15590 ALLEN'S PRESS CLIPPING BUREAU CLIPPINGS FOR 10/03 266.80 253.46 13.34 15592 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES05A: FY02/03 REC. WTR REVIEW 13,941.00 13,941.00 - 15593 ECO RESOURCES, Inc. 02A: 10/03 OPER & MAINT 24,503.93 - 24,503.93 15594 ELSIE E. BAKONIS RETIREE MEDICAL REIMB 677.56 643.68 33.88 15595 F&M BANK: CC PAYMENT DIR CC CHARGE 1,411.15 1,340.60 70.55 15596 GENERAL ALARM SERVICES 11/03 ALARM SERVICES 60.00 57.00 3.00 15597 PHASE II SYSTEM PARS IMPLEMENTATION FEES 3,000.00 2,850.00 150.00 15598 PSOMAS & ASSOCIATES 30A: PROF SERVICE ENDING 9/25/0 18,672.40 18,672.40 - 15599 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 66.23 62.92 3.31 15600 STANDARD LASER LASER PRINTER MAINTENANCE 966.16 917.86 48.30 15601 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND 10/1/03-11/1/03 WORKER COMP 4,174.97 3,638.11 536.86 15602 TORRANCE, CITY OF 02A: 11/03 PLANT SITE RENT 2,500.00 - 2,500.00 15603 VERIZON WIRELESS 10/03 PHONE CHARGES 989.42 939.94 49.48 15604 WESTON BENSHOOF ROCHEFORT 01A: 09/03 LEGAL SERVICE 50,547.29 37,053.07 13,494.22

########### 2,080,903.86$ 160,253.04$

Robb Whitaker, P.E., General Manager

Total Demands for October 7th to November 7th, 2003.

Page 3 of 3

Water Replenishment District of Southern CaliforniaDemands List - Current and YTD By Vendor

Payee Description Current Demands Demands PAYROLL PAYROLL 121,435.80 478,922.19 PAYROLL TAXES 46,451.03 185,304.33 PAYROLL BENEFIT/DEDUCTION/REIMBURSE 44,470.86 174,568.01 ALBERT ROBLES DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 2,243.00 11,531.15 NORM RYAN DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 2,588.66 11,348.79 PATRICIA ACOSTA DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 2,093.58 8,168.85 ROBERT W. GOLDSWORTHY DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 2,038.00 7,833.60 WILLARD H. MURRAY, JR. DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 1,473.22 6,776.69 ACWA SERVICES CORPORATION11/03 MED/DEN/LIFE PREMIUM 23,559.30 67,196.76 ACWA SERVICES CORPORATION10/03 MED/DEN/LIFE PREMIUM 21,782.98 88,979.74 ADVANCED DOCUMENT SOLUTIOSCAN, STORE & RETRIEVE SOFTWA 17,563.28 17,563.28 AGWA FY 03/04 MEMBERSHIP DUES 1,000.00 1,000.00 AIRGAS WEST, INC. 23A: HAZ MTRL CHARGE 47.04 182.68 AIRGAS WEST, INC. 23A: HAZ MTRL CHARGE 103.93 286.61 ALLEN'S PRESS CLIPPING BUREACLIPPINGS FOR 09/03 316.52 1,059.24 ALLEN'S PRESS CLIPPING BUREACLIPPINGS FOR 10/03 266.80 1,326.04 APEX BUILDING MAINTENANCE, 10/03 JANITORIAL SERVICE 695.00 3,170.00 ARLENE BOATRIGHT RETIREE MEDICAL REIMB 302.93 302.93 ASSOC. OF CA. WATER AGENCIEREGISTRATION FEE 20.00 401.76 ASSOC. OF CA. WATER AGENCIE10/03 EAP FEE 194.56 596.32 BARBARA ANN BAXTER RETIREE MEDICAL REIMB 524.33 701.09 BELTRAN & MEDINA 09/03 LEGAL SERVICE 58,069.31 180,751.90 BOART LONGYEAR COMPANY 11A: MISC WELL SUPPLIES 37.73 37.73 BRIAN J. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 09/03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,639.90 25,157.30 CA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOC. CONFERENCE EXPENSES 420.00 585.00 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 10/03 WATER SERVICE 14.00 108.70 CARPI & CLAY 08/03 LEG ADV SERVICE - FEDERAL 4,583.33 13,749.99 CARPI & CLAY 09/03 LEG. SERVICES - FEDERAL 4,583.33 18,333.32 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. COMPUTER SUPPLIES 186.19 8,432.44 CENTRAL BASIN MW DISTRICT 08/03 CONNECTION FEE 6,000.00 18,000.00 CERRITOS MINI STORAGE 11/03 STORAGE B013 & B014 485.00 1,940.00 CHEVRON 11A: FUEL CHARGES 179.93 442.02 COLORADO RIVER WTR USERS AREG FEE FOR 03 ANNUAL MTG- AR 200.00 200.00 COSTCO BUSINESS DELIVERY OFFICE SUPPLIES 376.63 910.94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 202A: 11/03 BRINE PIPELINE 3,664.00 129,008.13 DANNY L. GLASGOW RETIREE MEDICAL REIMB 333.44 876.13 DELL ACCOUNT DELL POWEREDGE SERVER 8,157.76 32,162.87 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERV 05A: FY02/03 REC. WTR REVIEW 13,941.00 13,941.00 DIGITAL DOCUMENT CONNECTIODOCUMENT IMAGING HARDWARE 8,635.00 8,635.00 EAGLE AERIAL IMAGING 10A: AERIAL DISTRICT PHOTOS 5,131.06 5,131.06 EARTHLINK INC. 10/03 INTERNET SERVICE 23.95 95.80 ECO RESOURCES, Inc. 02A: 07/03 OPER & MAINT 28,292.56 47,472.48 ECO RESOURCES, Inc. 02A: CHEMICAL SUPPLIES 20,481.63 67,954.11 ECO RESOURCES, Inc. 02A: 09/03 OPER & MAINT 14,146.28 82,100.39 ECO RESOURCES, Inc. 02A: 10/03 OPER & MAINT 24,503.93 106,604.32 ELSIE E. BAKONIS MEDICAL REIMB 677.56 677.56 EMCA CLERK (US POSTAL SERV POSTAGE USAGE 35.70 65.70 ERHART'S CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 266.30 2,868.73 F&M BANK: CC PAYMENT DIR CC CHARGES 1,618.74 2,900.61 F&M BANK: CC PAYMENT DIR CC CHARGE 1,411.15 4,311.76 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATITRANSPORATION CHARGES 80.67 879.92 GENERAL ALARM SERVICES 10/03 ALARM SERVICE & RPLM 148.47 416.94 GENERAL ALARM SERVICES 11/03 ALARM SERVICES 60.00 476.94 GEOTECH ENVIRONMENTAL EQU04A: MISC SUPPLIES 2,627.87 4,370.07 I.S. BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. 11B: PRINTING 914.86 1,109.01 INTER-TEL NETSOLUTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 116.37 250.09

Page 1 of 2

Water Replenishment District of Southern CaliforniaDemands List - Current and YTD By Vendor

Payee Description Current Demands Demands KINKO'S INC. 05A: PRINTING 89.65 732.99 LONG BEACH, CITY OF 08/03 WATER PURCHASES 185,189.20 549,950.80 LONG BEACH, CITY OF 09/03 WATER PURCHASE 251,888.70 801,839.50 LONG BEACH, CITY OF 01A: HAZ. MTRL DISCLOSURE FEE 613.50 802,453.00 LOS ANGELES TIMES 11A: JOB AD 1,175.00 2,428.84 LOS ANGELES TIMES NEWSPAPER 9/29/03-11/24/03 39.92 2,468.76 MARTIN E WHELAN. JR. 11/03 MEDICAL PREMIUM 749.42 2,997.68 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS 01A: PHONE CHARGE 30.88 130.98 MCI WORLDCOM COMM. PHONE 9/15/03-10/14/03 56.11 699.30 MWH LABORATORIES LAB CHARGES 2,158.00 111,359.00 MWH LABORATORIES 09/03 LAB CHARGES 76,940.00 188,299.00 NATIONAL WTR RESEARCH INST05A: VALUATION GRNWTR 37.95 37.95 NAVIGANT CONSULTING,,INC. 23A: PROF SERVICE THRU 09/03 440.00 1,628.00 NORWALK PRINTING SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 707.96 1,481.35 NORWALK PRINTING SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 59.54 1,540.89 PACIFIC BELL 02A: 09/03 PHONE CHARGE 110.25 440.96 PHASE II SYSTEM PARS IMPLEMENTATION FEES 3,000.00 7,500.00 PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE USAGE 1,015.00 5,432.79 POSTMASTER BUSINESS REPLY MAIL 150.00 550.00 PROF. PUBLICATIONS, INC. ENG. REFERENCE MANUAL 241.48 241.48 PSOMAS & ASSOCIATES 30A: PROF SERVICE END 8/28/03 18,599.32 85,906.41 PSOMAS & ASSOCIATES 30A: PROF SERVICE ENDING 9/25/03 18,672.40 104,578.81 R. FAIR & ASSOCIATES 09/03 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 5,000.00 15,000.00 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 66.23 66.23 ROSE & KINDEL 09/03 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 10,000.00 40,000.00 SEPARATION PROCESSES, INC. 02A: 09/03 PROF. SERVICE 5,041.18 31,609.58 SOLINST CANADA LTD. 23A: MATERIAL SUPPLIES 83.01 83.01 SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON 01A: 09/03 ENERGY USAGE 591.22 106,028.25 SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON 02A: 09/03 ENERGY USAGE 8,309.51 114,337.76 SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON 10/03 ENERGY USAGE 1,072.76 115,410.52 SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON 10/03 ENERGY USAGE (A4022) 1,709.33 117,119.85 STANDARD INSURANCE CO. 11/03 STD/LTD PREMIUM 1,600.42 7,818.10 STANDARD LASER LASER PRINTER MAINTENANCE 966.16 966.16 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN OFFICE SUPPLIES 154.32 6,372.00 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUN10/1/03-11/1/03 WORKER COMP 4,174.97 29,382.78 SUMMIT BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.28 5,626.54 TORRANCE, CITY OF 02A: 11/03 PLANT SITE RENT 2,500.00 38,636.00 UC CENTER FOR WTR RESOURCREGISTRATION FEE - TJ 250.00 250.00 UNION 76 11A & 23A: FUEL CHARGES 56.52 245.15 UNION DEVELOPMENT CO INC 11/03 BUILDING RENT 9,249.45 46,528.02 VAN'S CUSTOM WOODWORKINGOFFICE REPAIR & MAINT SERVICE 100.00 950.00 VERIO 10/03 INTERNET SERVICE 1,087.00 4,348.00 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 01A: 10/03 PHONE CHARGE 1,464.99 6,422.27 VERIZON WIRELESS 10/03 CELL PHONE 739.77 3,282.08 VERIZON WIRELESS 10/03 PHONE CHARGES 989.42 4,271.50 WATERLOO HYDROGEOLOGIC 11B: GRNDWTR QTY FOFTWARE 315.00 315.00 WEST BASIN MW DISTRICT 08/03 WATER PURCHASES 1,068,485.58 4,295,014.98 WEST GROUP 06A: ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 289.00 397.25 WESTON BENSHOOF ROCHEFOR01A: 09/03 LEGAL SERVICE 50,547.29 222,363.62 WILLIAMS MEDICAL GROUP, INC TEST-MED VACCINATION SERVICES 745.00 745.00 XO CORPORATION PHONE 10/15/03-11/14/03 367.74 1,179.32

TOTAL BY VENDOR 2,241,156.90 9,735,645.48

Page 2 of 2

WRD Active Contracts Under $25K Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Apex Building Maintenance, Inc. Contract Service Provide janitorial service for the district office building. Monthly charge $9,500.00 $4,899.00 of $695/mo plus reimbursement for expendable supplies. Term end 04/12/2004.

Barbour Well Surveying Corp Contract Service WRD portion of Cleanout for Well 9X. Cooperative Study of Nitrogen $23,970.00 $13,960.00 Gas Injection with LADWP & USBR. Injection Well Rehabilitation, Redondo Beach. Contract furnish all labor, materials, equipment, supplies, incidental, temporary facilities and temporary utilities. Remove fill material from well and place a bentonite grout seal above packer.

CB Richard Ellis, Inc. Contract Service The District appoints CBRE as sole and exclusive agent to aid in the $0.00 $0.00 acquisition of corporate office space. The appointment extends until office space is acquired or written termination from WRD. Any commissions and/or fees to which CBRE is entitled shall be paid by the owner of any property purchased and not by the District.

Central Basin M.W.D. Bldg/Land/Equip. Lease Lease real property owned by CBMWD for the purpose of installation, $10.00 $10.00 operation and maintenance of portable carbon treatment units. Terms are for 10 years at $1/yr.

Central Basin Municipal Water Other Memo stating the intent of CBMWD and Long Beach Water District to $0.00 $0.00 District transfer responsibility for CenB-44 Connection from CBMWD to LBWD effective Jan 1, 2003.

Cerritos Mini Storage Bldg/Land/Equip. Lease Rental of two(2) storage units. Month to month lease. 2002 monthly $5,820.00 $5,820.00 rental is 221/mo per unit. Effective 8/1/03 rate per month has been increased to $242.00

County of Los Angeles Bldg/Land/Equip. Lease Monthly lease of the Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds northerly of $2,400.00 $0.00 Department of Public Works Washington Boulevard in the City of Montebello Rent is $50/mo or $600/yr commencing on October 1, 1998. A month-to-month contract with 30 day notice of cancellation by each party.

County of Los Angeles Bldg/Land/Equip. Lease Monthly lease of the San Gabriel River, located south of Willow Street, $4,850.11 $0.00 Department of Public Works in the City of Long Beach. The first year rent prepaid for the amount of $4,250.11. Commencing with the second year rent is $600/yr (March 1st, 2002.) A month-to-month contract with 30 day notice of cancellation by each party.

County of Los Angeles Bldg/Land/Equip. Lease Monthly lease of the San Gabriel Coastal Basin Spreading Ground, Pico $6,000.00 $600.00 Department of Public Works Rivera at $50/mo or $600/yr commencing on August 1, 1997. A month-to-month contract with 30 day notice of cancellation by each

Monday, November 10, 2003 Page 1 of 6

Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining County Sanitation District of LA Other Boundary Changes of Districts Annexation 53 to County Sanitation $0.00 $0.00 County District 5.

County Sanitation District of LA Other Non-exclusive easement and Right of Way - Lots 43 & 44 Tract 10548. $0.00 $0.00 County Long Beach Reclamation Plant.

Dryden, Franklin Contract Service Professional services to obtain permit to start operations of the LFVWTF. $12,500.00 $3,750.00

Farmers & Merchants Bank Other On-line internet banking agreement. $0.00 $0.00

Farmers & Merchants Bank Other Electronic payroll services (direct deposit agreement). $0.00 $0.00

Freeman Investigative Group, Inc. Contract Service Provide executive and entry-level background investigations, threat $24,999.00 $17,092.75 assessement and mitigation, confidential investigation and security and law enforcement consulting on an as-needed basis.

General Alarm Services, Inc. Contract Service Alarm services for building. $4,328.29 for alarm and installation. $4,328.29 $0.00 Monthly maintenance and service fee of $65. Balance on PO is the balance of fiscal year budgeted maintenance and service fees.

Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. Contract Service Contractor to furnish all labor, material, equipment, supplies, incidentals, $24,999.00 $22,484.00 temporary facilities & utilities required to perform miscellaneous wellhead repairs.

Long Beach, City of Other Copies of Easement for Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility. $0.00 $0.00

Long Beach, City of Other City of Long Beach to construct a pipeline underneath property owned by $0.00 $0.00 WRD. The pipeline will be used for the sole purpose of transporting reclaimed water on an easement granted in this agreement for the LJVWTF.

Long Beach, City of Other City of Long Beach grant of Right of Entry to WRD for the purpose of $0.00 $0.00 taking core samples and developing the bore holes into two groundwater monitoring wells. The wells under a separate contract were constructed by U.S. Geological Survey(USGS). The rights are granted at no cost, however WRD shall provide at no cost to the city copies of all sampling data, analyses and reports relating to the wells and the sampling

Long Beach, City of Other Second Amendment to Agreement #120 (1st Amend #125) for $0.00 $0.00 Groundwater Banking. Long Beach may store up to 13K AF of "Net Stored Water", or "in-lieu storage or combination thereof. Storage by injection is the direct delivery of Stored Water through the new ASR


Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Long Beach, City of Other City of Long Beach with water supplied by MWD will place up to $0.00 $0.00 13,000AF of "net stored water" into available subsurface storage space in the Central Basin. At any given year Long Beach may extract up to 4,333AF of Stored Water. City of Long Beach in cooperation with WRD will contruct ASR wells in connection with this project. The term of the agreement is 25 years, effective January 10th, 2002.

Long Beach, City of Other Amendment to the groundwater banking contract, Agreement #125. $0.00 $0.00 Long Beach will modify and utilize LB existing well system to place water purchased by WRD into the Central Basin. WRD will pay Long Beach for costs associated with the placement of WRD water into the Central Basin and extraction & delivery of water into the Alamitos Barrier. Cost not to exceed 10% of prevailing per AF rate of MWD water.

Los Angeles County Flood Control Contract Service As an interim measure, LACFC District, WRD and USEPA have agreed to $0.00 $0.00 District & USEPA conserve treated water from USEPA's Whittier Narrows Operable Unit in the Central Groundwater Basin by discharging the water through LACFCD's Rio Hondo spreading grounds. This interim agreement is for 12 months. USEPA intends to eventually treat the Reclaimed Water to a potable drinking water and be able to supply a third party utility(Purveeyor) under a permit by the State of California's Departement of Health Services. USEPA anticipate that the Purveyor will be able to accept the treated water within approximately twelve months. Several provisions are outlined in the contract to be adhered to in order to

Los Angeles County Flood Control Contract Service WRD agrees to deliver reclaimed water to the Barrier pursuant to the $0.00 District, Orange County Water terms of the Agreement. The LACFCD agrees to take and inject reclaimed water into the Barrier pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. OCWD agrees to permit the use of recycled water as an alternative source of supply to the Barrier and also pay for its share of the costs of the recycled water. Commence date is August 5th and contract terminates 10 years after the start of water delivery.

Los Angeles Departement of Other Quitclaim Deed, Quitclaim Bill of Sale and Quitclaim Assignment of two $0.00 $0.00 Water & Power new production wells constructed by Global Pump and financed by WRD for LADWP.

Lynwood Park Mutual Water Grant/Revenue Amortization schedule for LPMWC to pay on a water assessment $23,656.64 $11,656.64 Company adjustment. The adjustment was due to incorrect meter reading by the water company. It is an annual payment schedule of $2000 per month.

Murakawa (Formerly Lang & Contract Service Perform public notification & construction mitigation for Gage Wells 1 & $20,000.00 $1,583.31 Murakawa) 2.


Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Navigant Consulting Inc. Contract Service Consulting services relating to Central & West Coast Basin management $24,000.00 $17,772.57 given on an as needed basis for issues stated: 1. Whittier Narrows contamination cleanup by EPA 2. Potential increase of water conservation pool behind Whittier Narrows dam to reduce loss of storm water to ocean, 3. Conjunctive use planning & projects WRD is considering, 4. Investigate incorporation of portion of Central Basin

Norwalk, City of Promissory of Service WRD will or cause the project to prepare the design, construction and $0.00 $0.00 installation of a granulated active carbon treatment system on Norwalk Well #8 in the City of Norwalk. The apparatus will remove Volatiles from water extracted from Central Groundwater. The City of Norwalk will operated and maintain the apparatus after construction. The construction of the apparatus has been awarded to ______ for the amount not to exceed $300,000

Orange County Water District Other Access permit for OCWD monitoring wells (OCWD-2AI). Expires $0.00 $0.00 8/31/2004.

Peer Swan Contract Service Peer Swan shall assess current and future needs of the district, assist and $24,999.00 $20,150.64 provide support in establishing a reserve policy of the district, review and provide guidance and support for the recycled water agreement with West Basin MWD.

PSOMAS Contract Service Psomas will survey 17 of WRD's monitoring well locations to a vertical $8,200.00 $9,020.00 accuracy of 0.1 foot with reference to NGVE of 29 survey datum. 10% Contingency of $820.

Robert Clark Contract Service Comprehensive Electrical Inspection for the LJVLTF. Robert Clark $4,999.00 $2,399.00 originally subcontracted through Butier Engineering as part of their construction management services team. His knowledge of the project is beneficial for this final phase of inspection.

Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Contract Service Assist WRD in developing a policy and procedures manual. Phase I: $8,000.00 $7,410.00 Scott, LLP Document all existing procedures, Phase II: Evaluate current procedures and recommend changes. Phase III: produce a comprehensive and detailed procedures manual. Commence on 02/10/2003 and expire on 06/30/2003.

Shields Consulting Group Contract Service Prepare & file cost claims for State mandated cost reimbursement. Also $15,479.00 $15,479.00 train district staff on mandated cost reimbursement program. Cost is 10% of claims prepared & submitted (this amount will be reimbursed by the State). Invoiced & payable only when reimbursement funds have been received from the State Controller's Office.

Southern California Water Promissory of Service WRD will design, construct, install and own a granular active carbon $0.00 $0.00 Company treatment system on the project well for the removal of VOC's from groundwater obtained at the well. SCWC will operate the system. The project cost for WRD $259,000. Hoffman Well #2.


Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Southern California Water Promissory of Service WRD will design, construct, install and own a granular active carbon $0.00 $0.00 Company treatment system on the project well for the removal of VOC's from groundwater obtained at the well. SCWC will operate the system. Gage Well #1 & 2

SummitWest Consulting, Inc. Contract Service Consultant shall provide hands-on training for the District's accounting $6,685.00 $6,185.00 software system (MIP). Training shall be provided in-house, using the District's accounting database, which will allow the consultant to customize and tailor instruction to the specific needs of staff, including but not limited to: general ledger, accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, purchase orders, encumbrances, financial reporting, administration, and utility upgrades. Consultant shall also prepare a Procedures Manual regarding the District's accounting software system

Tres Es, LLC, Other Memorandum by WRD authorizing Beltran & Medina to hire Tres Es, $0.00 $0.00 LLC, to assist in anticipated litigation with the Department of Health Services, County Sanitation District and Regional Water Quality Control

Verizon Wireless Contract Service Wireless service provider for the District. Plans vary by individuals $5,340.00 $0.00 according to historical usage. Two year plan.

Wayne Jackson Engineering Contract Service Consultant shall provide professional services to WRD for the following $12,500.00 $12,500.00 tasks: Sample hard copies of Weekly Reports from line measurements, Daily Reports from Pressure Reduction Stations, Hard copies of latest as-builts for pipeline/well distribution system, electronic copies of latest as-builts for pipeline/well distribution systems, verify location of MWD flowmeter, electronic copies of previous and current designs for injection, extraction, and monitoring wells, electronic copies of photos, electronic or hard copies of water level measurement schedules for barrier wells, chloride sampling schedules for barrier wells, complete historical data sets for injection, extraction, water level and chloride data, and locate MWD meter WB-28a for West Coast Basin Barrier flow verification purposes West Basin Municipal Water Contract Service MOU: To secure MWD's agreement to sell imported water to WBMWD for $0.00 District injection into the Barrier at a rate (Barrier Rate) that is significantly less than MWD's rate for non-interruptible water sold at Tier One Rates. If MWD agrees to such a Barrier Rate, then WBMWD shall sell such imported water to WRD at the Barrier Rate, plus all applicable surcharges which include MWD's readiness to serve charge and WBMWD's administrative surcharge. WBWMD shall use its best efforts to expeditiously secure all permits for, and thereafter construct, the Phase IV Expansion, which expanded facility shall include the use of Microfiltration, Reverse Osmosis with Thin Film Composite Membranes, and Ultraviolet Light treatment processes for all recycled water provided by WBMWD to WRD for groundwater recharge.


Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining West Basin Municipal Water MOU MOU - parties shall cooperate use best efforts to secure $0.00 $0.00 District (WBMWD) MWD's agreement to sell imported water to WBMWD for injection into the Barrier at a rate that is significantly less than MWD's rate for non-interruptible water sold at Tier One rates. If MWD agrees to such a Barrier Rate, then WBMWD shall sell such imported water to WRD at the Barrier Rate, plus all applicable surcharges which includes MWD's readiness to serve charge and WBMWD's administrative surcharge. WBMWD shall use its best efforts to expeditiously secure all permits for, and thereafter construct, the Phase IV Expansion treatment processes for all recycled water provided by WBMWD to WRD for groundwater

WRM EnviroClean-Southwest, Contract Service Horizontal Well Vendor Search to identify vendors that have the $1,900.00 $1,900.00 LLC capability to install horizontal, potable water wells to approximately 400 to 500 feet below grade.

Xerox Contract Service A 60 month lease for 2nd Floor digital network copier. Include $14,383.80 $10,600.00 maintenance and supplies.


WRD Active Contracts Over $25K Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining AMS Response Contract Service Design, printing, production and mailing of quarterly newsletters FY02/03 $117,306.40 $45,428.82

Beltran & Medina: Contract Service Attorney to provide legal counsel and representation for district. The attorneys will $464,585.22 $377,317.41 Attorney at Law take reasonable steps to inform the district of the progress in matters and respond to district inquiries. Sixty days prior to end of a fiscal year, the district will evaluate the quality, cost and benefit of services. Administration committee of the board will review the evaluation and report to the Board. The Board can terminate, change, amend the contract. The contract is billed based on hourly rates as predetermined in the contract. The Dollar value stated is the budgeted amount for the Fiscal Year 03-04 based on historical data.

Brian Brady & Contract Service Consultant shall provide management support services as follows: (1) Coordinate $50,000.00 $287.30 Associates with selected groundwater producers the updating of information regarding potentially contaminating activities for incorporation into the Drinking Water Source Assessment Program reports in order for the State Department of Health Services to accept the report. (2) Obtain a report on the status & future plans for selected wells from owners to determine the potential for groundwater contamination. (3) Provdie independent review of current Distric Staff issues. (4) Provide support to District staff in development of the District's Strategic Plan and Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. Consultant may use Dr. Don Grayson as subcontractor. Hourly rate is $185. Budgetary amount not to exceed $50,000 (include fee and reimbursable expenses.) Commence 04/2/03 and expire 04/01/2004. Butier Engineering, Contract Service Furnish complete construction management and ensure the LJVWTF project is $650,000.00 $3,314.00 Inc completed in strict accordance with the construction contract documents. Scope involves the pre-construction phase, construction, start-up, testing, project close-out and completion phase. Original Contract of $555,725 with contingency amount of $14,275 was increased to $630,000 by a change order approved by the board on 01/13/03. An additional change order approved by GM 03/04/03 for $20K increase contract amount to $650K.


Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining California Other A portion of the California State I-105 Freeway in Norwalk-Paramount-Downey $8,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 Department of area is constructed approx. 30 feet below ground surface and is periodically threatened by groundwater levels in the Central Basin. To protect the substructure of the I-105 from damage, Caltrans owns and operates a series of wells that extract groundwater from beneath the freeway and release that water into the Los Angeles River for drainage to the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore the extracted groundwater contains elevated level of VOCs that exceed drinking water standards. Caltran operates a treatment facility to treat the water before releasing to the river. WRD levies a replenishment assessment on the extracted water which Caltran pays under protest. The preferred engineering solution for ensuring that the groundwater extracted is restored to the underground would likely involve pipeline delivery of the treated water for re-injection at the Dominquez Gap Seawater Intrution Barrier Wells. WRD is responsible for obtaining further technical and enviromental studies, any regulatory permits, easments, right of way, approvals necessary to develop and construct the Pipeline Project. Caltrans is responsible for completing an economic analysis regarding the costs to develop, permit and construct the project. WRD Board shall consider the request by Caltrans for an exemption from the Replenishment assessment on or before the date the Board reviews the CEQA Review. Within 30 days from April 2nd, 2003 (the effective date of this contract) Caltrans will pay to WRD eight million dollars in one lump sum. The funds shall be used solely by WRD to pay the cost necessary to develop, permit, and construct the Proposed Project and any well deepening conducted by WRD and to pay the Replenishment Assessment levied against Caltran until such time that the Caltran exemption is granted by WRD board and the said extractions are returned to the underground. WRD shall provide Caltran every 180 days with a written accounting of the type and amount of cost incurred in the Project. California Water Promissory of WRD has agreed to fund the Wellhead Treatment of CWS Well 43-01 relating to $150,950.00 $150,950.00 Service Service design, construction, installation, operation and decommissioning of the wellhead to treat volatile organic compounds from water extracted. This contract was awarded to US Filter for construction. To be paid to US Filter.

Camp, Dresser & Contract Service Design and engineering services for Leo J. Vander Lans Water Treatment Facility. $789,780.00 $25,758.43 McKee This project will substitute approximately 50% of the imported water. In conjunction with P.O.No.100196. The original contract is $789,780.00 with 6 additional amendments total of $198,733.00. CDM will serve as project manager, perform survey & geotechnical services, prepare preliminary design, document the contract, perform other services during bidding and construction.

Carpi & Clay Contract Service Coordinate and develop strategy for potential federal funding for WRD projects $55,000.00 $8,409.23 including testimony at the annual congressional hearings on water projects, monitor proposed federal legislation and regulations that may impact WRD's interests. Ensure congressional delegations and appropriate committees are aware of WRD's position on legislative proposals. One year contract effective 12/01/02 Monday, November 10, 2003 Page 2 of 8

Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Central Basin Other CBMWD a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of So. Ca. agrees to $713,900.00 $713,900.00 pass through subsidy paid by MWDSC to WRD for water produced by the Leo J. Vander Lans Water Treatement Facility. WRD will design, construct, own, operate & maintain the facility. This pass through will offset the cost of treatement. WRD will pay to CBMWD $14.00 per acre foot for the duration of this agreement to mitigate revenue impacts to the Central Basin caused by the Project. The maximum allowed subsidy will not exceed 3025 acre feet per year. (Note:current rate as of 2002 is max 250/af.) Maximum Subsidy of $756,250, less deduction of 14.00/af for loss of revenue to CB.

Central Basin Other Central Basin to expend trust funds to purchase property for the construction of the $1,020,000.00 $0.00 Leo J. VanderLans WTF in the City of Long Beach. The project shall be in use within five (5) years of the date of acquisition of the property. If the property is not used for the project within the five years, the property will be sold by WRD and proceeds from the sale refunded to the Trust Fund of CBMWD. If construction of project is eminent, the requirement for WRD to sell may be extended or waived at the discretion of CBMWD. WRD shall provide annual written progress reports on the construction of the project for five (5) years.

CH2M Hill Contract Service Advisory services in the recycle water assessment project including technical $50,000.00 $1,165.41 review and participation in meetings & regulatory negotiations related to water quality, treatment alternatives and regulatory issues. Review technical memoranda and provide input and discussion at meetings. This contract was reassigned from Black & Veatch to CH2MHill.

County of Los Contract Service Reclaimed water will be purchased by WRD from the City of Los Angeles $2,655,000.00 $2,655,000.00 Angeles Department Department of Water & Power. The County of Los Angeles will take the water and inject into the Dominguez Gap Barrier Project for WRD. Ten year contract, rate reviewed at fifth year interval. WRD may purchase maximum 5000AF annually @ $431/AF. The County will annually request reimbursement for maintenance associated with the use of reclaimed water facilities up to a maximum of

County Sanitation Contract Service Joint Agreement for purchase of water from Whittier Narrows Plant and San Jose $759,960.00 $0.00 District of LA Reclaimation Plant. Interim Agreement was entered upon on 04/01/1975 in anticipation of the original agreement expiration for the Whittier Plant. The Dollar value stated is the budgeted amount for the Fiscal Year 03-04.

County Sanitation Bldg/Land/Equip. Discharge Pipeline connection lease 3664/mo for Goldsworthy Desalter. Loan $263,811.29 $117,578.48 District of LA County Lease amount is $190,442.37 @ 11.4% interest, 72 payments.

Don Howard Contract Service Provide professional services for design, inspection, and construction management $153,865.00 $59,680.00 Engineers for Wellhead Treatment Facilities: Norwalk #8, Commerce #4L, and SCWC Converse. Not to exceed 153,865 for direct labor and direct expense

ECO Resources Contract Service Operation & maintenance of Goldsworthy Desalter. Year 10/01-09/02 $580,356.56 $37,683.48 $290,356.56; Year 10/02-09/03 Est. 290,000.

Komex-H20 Science, Contract Service Phase II: hydrogeologic investigation of chromium, northern area of Central Basin, $117,481.00 $72,930.05 Inc. Los Angeles County, CA.


Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Long Beach, City of Contract Service Amending Lease & Water Purchase Agreement relating to the LJVWTF dated $8,295,600.00 $8,295,600.00 June 30, 1999. Upon completion of the Leo J. Vander Lans Water Treatment Facility, the City of Long Beach agree to operate & maintain the facility at an annual rent of $1,382,600/yr(115216.67/mo). The contract will commence on the later of the following dates: (I) the date upon which WRD delivers possession of the Facility to Long Beach, (ii) the date which all permits and approvals to operate have been received. A six year agreement with option to extend for four consecutive periods of five years. The operating cost includes monitoring, engineering, administration and legal costs. Replacement of capital items <25,000 shall be covered by WRD. WRD will purchase from City of Long Beach water produce at the Facility for injection at the Barrier

Los Angeles & San Contract Service Contribution to Phase II of Water Augmentation Study. Demonstration studies of $75,000.00 $25,000.00 Gabriel Rivers groundwater recharge of stormwater. Four other partners are also contributing equally for the study; LADWP, County PW, Regional WQCB and MWD. Total study cost is $3M, WRD portion is $75K payable over three years @ $25K per year starting in 2002.

Los Angeles County Other Dominquez Gap Barrier Hydroelectric Facility Release, Closing and Termination $183,500.00 $0.00 Flood Control Agreement. WRD desires to replace a portion on MWD water delivered to the Dominquez Gap Barrier with reclaimed water. This will result in a negative impact to the parties associated with the hydroplant through a potential loss of revenue. WRD has entered into an agreement and is released from any future liability in regards to the said Hydroplant. Sullivan, the owner of the plant closes and terminates the O&M agreement with LACFCD. The hydroplant is released to LACFCD with no further obligation from any said parties. WRD paid a settlement of $183,500 in exchange for the closing and termination of the hydroplant.

Main San Gabriel Contract Service Amendment to the Water Production Agreement of June 2002 which will expire $73,995.00 $73,995.00 Basin Watermaster, on May 31,2003. The Amendment will extend the terms of the above mentioned contract an additional year until May 31, 2004 subject to the following conditions: (A) USEPA may discharge water extracted from the intermediate zone wells and Well EW 4-3 and treat as part of the WNOU Project into the Zone-1-Ditch for conservation in the Central Basin as needed and only until DHS issues a water supply permit for delivery of treated water to local purveryor. Discharge shall not take place after Sept. 2003. (B) USEPA may discharge the extracted water into Legg Lake and Whittier Narrows Nature Center Lakes as needed and only until DHS issues a water supply permit for delivery of treated water to local purveryors. Discharged water shall not exceed 300 acre feet. Current rate per af is $246.65.

Murakawa (Formerly Contract Service Perform public notification & construction mitigation for the Goldsworthy Desalter $60,000.00 $19,674.83 Lang & Murakawa) & LJVWTF.

MWH Laboratories Contract Service Provide analytical laboratory services and groundwater monitoring related to $1,356,468.00 $624,055.00 testing for all relevant projects. Three year contract with annual amount of $678,324 based on fees presented in proposal. Monday, November 10, 2003 Page 4 of 8

Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Norwalk, City of Contract Service Wellhead Treatment Agreement between the City of Norwalk and WRD for the $300,000.00 $300,000.00 design, installation, operation and maintenance of a wellhead treatment facility for the removal of volatiles from the groundwater produced from the Project Well

Orange County Other Joint effort to obtain engineering study on the use of reclaimed water at the $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Water District LJVWTF barrier. Cost of $100,000 is shared 50/50.

Pacific Hydrotech Contract Service Complete furnishing and installation and construction of a Granular Activated $441,790.00 $485,969.00 Corporation Carbon Treatment System at the Norwalk Well No. 8

Pall Corporation Contract Service Furnish, deliver, and provide installation and startup supervision and assistance for $1,867,300.00 $0.00 microfiltration system at the LJVWTF barrier. This system will improve water quality by implementing a micrfiltration treatment process that will be used in conjunction with reverse osmosis.

PK Contractors Contract Service Provide construction for the Leo Vander Lans Water Treatment Facility. Contract $11,732,000.00 $249,345.71 amount $11,732K with 5% contingency.

Psomas & Associates Contract Service GIS Enhancement: Phase III Improvement: ArcIMS Improvements and GIS Web $92,275.00 $11,520.50 Page, GIS enhancements and functionality enhancements. Original Contract for $92,275 with a 10% contingency approved by the Board on 10/11/2001.

Psomas & Associates Contract Service Amendment to 3/15/02 Agreement #166 for Alamitos Physical Barrier Project $379,517.00 $33,067.29 Study. Phase I and II of the project. Analyze geotechnical & hydrogeology data to select a preferred alignment for the DSM barrier and location of rubber dam, refine preliminary cost estimates, preliminary design, prepare enviromental documentation & permitting.

R. Fair and Contract Service Legislative Advocay and Government Relations Services Agreement. Monitor and $120,000.00 $105,000.00 Associates track California state legislation and protect interest of district by influencing the formulation of these proposals. Determine and recommend appropriate action plans based on professional assessment of legislative processes. $120,000 annual retainer fee includes expense reimbursement.

Rose & Kindel Contract Service Registered lobbyist representing the District on state legislative and administrative $124,800.00 $13,538.46 matters. Provide assistance to District with respect to public affairs, implementation of State audit reports, district plans, programs and policy initiatives and advice on local and regional governmental relations. One year term @$120k/yr plus out-of-pocket expenses.

Separation Contract Service Design, develop and provide start-up supervision and assistance for the reverse $360,000.00 $75,899.96 Processes, Inc. osmosis system for the Goldsworthy Desalter. The purpose of the project is to reduce the salinity of the groundwater and restore the acquifer as a source of drinking water through the combination of chemical and reverse osmosis treatment processes.


Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Separation Contract Service Design, develop and provide start-up supervision and assistance for an advanced $454,718.00 $8,030.46 Processes, Inc. water treatment plant that employs both microfiltration and reverse osmosis. LJVWTF will substitute 50% of the imported water currently used as a source of barrier injection water with recycled water. In conjunction with PO no. 100200 with CDM.

Signal Hill, City of Contract Service Loan for building wellhead treatment facilities for Signal Hill Wells 7 & 8. The $870,000.00 $114,049.99 water pumped from the site is currently affected by manganese & iron at levels exceeding the allowable levels. Ten year terms at zero interest rate. The City will own and operate the treatment facility.

Sullivan, Gene; Contract Service WRD desires to replace a portion of the MWD Water delivered to the Barrier with $183,500.00 $0.00 LACFCD;OCWD reclaimed water delivered from the Reclaimed Water Project. Therefore, the parties acknowledge a possible negative impact on the ability to operate the Alamitos Hydro Plant, and consequently, the parties desire under the terms and conditions in this Agreement to terminate the Site Lease and the O&M Agreement and for Sullivan and So Cal Edison to terminate the Power Purchase Agreement.

Teaman, Ramirez & Contract Service To perform and file necessary reports for year-end audit of the District in $55,500.00 $29,700.00 Smith Inc. accordance with District Water Code. Cost is $18,000 for 2002, $18,500 for 2003, $19,000 for 2004. Contingency increase maximum at 10%.

Torrance, City of Bldg/Land/Equip. City of Torrance leases a portion of their maintenance yard to WRD for the $600,000.00 $452,500.00 Lease Goldsworthy Desalter. The lease is at $2,500/mo for 20 years with an extendsion option for an additional 15 years, for a maximum of 35 years.

U.S. Department of Grant/Revenue Mofidication No. 013, Cooperative Agreement No. 00-FC-30-0008, Alamitos $1,200,000.00 $758,126.95 Interior(Bureau of Barrier Recycled Water Project. Modification No. 013 extends the completion date to December 31, 2003 and increases the total cost.

U.S. Department of Grant/Revenue Modification No. 003 of Cooperative Agreement No. 00-FC-30-0008, LJVWTF $1,680,000.00 the Interior (Bureau Project. Grant issued by the USBR for the construction of the project equivalent to 25% of total project costs (WRD contributes 75% of the costs related to the development & administration of the grant).

U.S. Department of Contract Service Joint funding of water resources investigation to study the fate & transport of MS2 $147,000.00 $46,000.00 the Interior (USGS) & PRD-1 during artificial recharge with recycled water. USGS portion is $101,000, WRD $147,000.

U.S. Filter Westates Contract Service Agreement for the design and construction of a Granular Activated Carbon $150,909.00 $31,818.00 (Westates Groundwater Treatment System for well owned by California Water Services. Project 12B.


Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Union Development Bldg/Land/Equip. Office building lease extension for five years. Property at 12621 E. 166th Street, $554,967.00 $268,234.05 Lease Cerritos. Lease is for $9,249.45/mo, predicated upon the agreed per square foot rent of $1.05/sq.ft./mo. A second option to renew the lease is applicable granted that WRD negotiate the rental terms at least 8 months prior to the expiration of this current extension which will be approx. 6/30/2005. The District is to provide written notice to Union Development Company of the District's intent to exercise the second option at least 210 days prior to expiration of the lease, approx.

University of Contract Service San Gabriel Spreading Area Tracer Research Study conducted by the University to $73,255.00 $40,880.70 California Regents determine groundwater transit times from the spreading area to selected monitoring and production wells. Contract stipulates advance quarterly payment unless WRD requests an invoice in a letter. WRD has requested invoices. The grant is given as a cost reimbursement up to $73,255.

West Basin Contract Service The Agreement for supply of recycled water is effective January 27, 2003 between $3,225,000.00 $3,225,000.00 Municipal Water WRD and WBMWD. This Agreement terminates the 1998 Agreement by mutual consent of the parties; any money owed by WRD for water delivered under the 1998 Agreement shall be paid to WBMWD within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this Agreement; until WBMWD completes the construction of the Recycling Facility Expansion and obtains all necessary governmental approvals and permit, WBMWD shall deliver to WRD and WRD shall purchase from WBMWD 7500 AF of recycled water on an annual basis or a lesser amount that this authorized by their Regional Board Permit; within 60 days from completion of construction and permitting and upon WBMWD's receipt of all necessary permit and approvals for injection of recycled water into the Barriers in a blend with non-recyled water of 75% to 25%, WBMWD shall deliver to WRD and WRD shall purchase 12,500 AF of recycled water on an annual basis or a lesser amount that is authorized by their Regional Board permit. WRD shall pay $430/AF of recycled water until the Recycling Plant is completed. Upon completion of the Recycling Facility, WRD shall pay $470/AF of recycled water.

West Basin Contract Service A five year contract effective 01/01/2003 to purchase imported water at Tier 1 $42,228,000.00 $42,228,000.00 Municipal Water annual maximum (16,560AF), the purchase commitment is 55,200AF at the Tier 1 rate (510AF). WRD agrees to pay the undeliverable balance of the purchase commitment if at the end of the year WRD had purchased less than the commitment level. The rates could change from time to time. First Amendment to this Purchase Agreement - added paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Purchase Agreement entitled "Commitments". Agreement signed 5/27/03. Monday, November 10, 2003 Page 7 of 8

Company Name Type Scope of Contract Contract Amount Balance Remaining Weston, Benshoof, Contract Service Second Modification to Attorney-Fee Contract effective 07/16/2003. First $471,999.78 $321,196.97 Rochefort, modification is the change in the hourly rates. Change from $185/hr to $200/hr for associates; from $245/hr to $275 for partners; for litigation matters rates changed from $230/hr to $260/hr. Furthermore, when both lead counsel attend the district board meeting their hourly rate shall be reduced by 50% for time spend at the meeting. Second modification states that "The attorneys may incur out-of-pocket-costs and expenses in performing legal services under this agreement." The third modification replaces the first modification in respect to the evaluation of the counsel contract. The board (not district staff) will begin an evaluation of counsel atleast 50 days (not 60 days) prior to end of fiscal year. At end of evaluation the board decide wether it is necessary to circulate a request for proposals for the position of District Counsel. The fourth amendment is a change of address for the Counsel. The fifth changes the effective date to April 9th, 2003. The sixth and seven eliminates old rate schedule and updates assignment of responsibility between the two firms. Same contarct applies to Beltran and Medina.


AGENDA ITEM NO. VI.D




SUBJECT: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

The attached financial statements include the Statement of Net Assets (Balance Sheet) at Septebmer 30, 2003 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Net Assets (Income Statement) for the month ending September 30, 2003. Significant changes from the previous month: • Cash and investments total $7.6 million, a $990,800 increase from last month. This

is primarily due to an increase of cash receipts over cash disbursements. • Earlier in the year, the City of Long Beach banked in-lieu water for future use. The

WRD billed this revenue in September and resulted in a $561,000 increase in accounts receivable from Long Beach. A corresponding amount increased deferred revenue which we account for in accounts payable.

• Construction in progress increased $444,000. This was due to capitalized expenses

relating to the Leo J. Vander Lans Water Treatment Facility. • There were no significant fluctuations in the income statement. However there was

one notable item; an increase of $112,500 in professional fees which was due to an increase in project operating and maitenance activity.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

That the Board approve the Financial Statements as submitted.


The Finance Committee will review this item at its November 14, 2003 meeting and will make a recommendation to the Board.

Water Replenishment District of Southern CaliforniaStatement of Net Assets

September 30, 2003

Replenishment Clean WaterFund Fund Total

Assets Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents 5,121,175 659,835 5,781,010 Investments 1,914,994 877,795 2,792,789 Accounts Receivable 7,205,310 488,740 7,694,050 Deposits Receivable 5,145 328 5,473 Interest Receivable 84,509 12,278 96,787 Prepaid Expenses 130,406 6,708 137,114 Total Current Assets 14,461,539 2,045,684 16,507,223

Noncurrent Assets Notes Receivable, Noncurrent - 680,355 680,355 Plant & Equipment 23,763,802 18,047,981 41,811,783 Land - 1,644,753 1,644,753 Construction-In-Progress 1,577,342 565,429 2,142,771 Accumulated Depreciation (2,194,614) (1,546,533) (3,741,147) Total Noncurrent Assets 23,146,530 19,391,985 42,538,515

Total Assets 37,608,069 21,437,669 59,045,738

Liabilities Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 3,813,515 465,758 4,279,273 Accrued Payroll (428) (27) (455) Accrued Employee Benefits 4,056 785 4,841 Total Current Liabilities 3,817,143 466,516 4,283,659

Noncurrent Liabilities Compensated Absences 165,040 24,682 189,722 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 165,040 24,682 189,722

Total Liabilities 3,982,183 491,198 4,473,381

Net Assets Invested in Capital Assets 23,146,530 18,711,630 41,858,160 Unrestricted 10,479,356 2,234,841 12,714,197

Total Net Assets 33,625,886 20,946,471 54,572,357

Total Liabilities & Net Assets 37,608,069 21,437,669 59,045,738

Water Replenishment District of Southern CaliforniaStatement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets

For the Month of September 2003

Replenishment Clean WaterFund Fund Total

Revenues Operating Revenues Water Replenishment Assessment 2,481,810 158,413 2,640,223

MWD Subsidy 58,163 3,713 61,876 Desalter Revenue 81,093 5,176 86,269

Total Operating Revenues 2,621,066 167,302 2,788,368

Operating Expenses Cost of Water Spreading - - - Injected 1,190,223 (2,036) 1,188,187 Connection Fees 42,213 22,249 64,462 Total Cost of Water 1,232,436 20,213 1,252,649 General and Administrative Salaries, Taxes & Benefits 200,925 26,387 227,312 Conference and Travel 7,275 383 7,658 Office Expenses 16,447 (6,321) 10,126 Utilities 6,158 8,711 14,869 Rents & Leases 10,243 6,703 16,946 Repairs & Maintenance 755 38 793 Materials & Equipment 8,234 20,740 28,974 General Liability Insurance 16,387 713 17,100 Professional Fees 237,008 50,811 287,819 Total General and Administrative 503,432 108,165 611,597 Depreciation 79,519 61,138 140,657 Total Operating Expenses 1,815,387 189,516 2,004,903

Operating Income (Loss) 805,679 (22,214) 783,465

Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses) Property Taxes - - - Investment Earnings 26,476 1,882 28,358 Miscellaneous 76,977 4,908 81,885 Total Non-Operating Revenues 103,453 6,790 110,243

Income (Loss) Before Contributions 909,132 (15,424) 893,708

Capital Contributions - USBR Grant - - -

Change in Net Assets 909,132 (15,424) 893,708

AGENDA ITEM NO. VI.E


TO: BOARD OF DIRECTOR


SUBJECT: INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 3,094,414 Los Angeles County Treasurer’s Pool (LACPIF) 229,498 Union Bank of California - Investments 2,787,100 Checking 2,457,098

Total Cash and Investments 8,568,110$

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 1.64% 4,158$ Los Angeles County Treasurer Pool (LACPIF) 1.33% 251 Union Bank of California - Investments 5.51% 17,619 Checking (Repurchase Agreements) .70% - .90% 3,375

Total Investment Earnings 25,403$

CASH AND INVESTMENTS

INVESTMENT EARNINGS

Water Replenishment District of Southern CalifoniaInvestment Report

September 30, 2003

LAIF LACPIF UBOCReplenishment Fund Activity Activity Activity CheckiBALANCE 9/1/03 $2,648,006 $162,473 $1,909,783INTEREST RECEIVED/REINVESTED 228 976 REALIZED GAIN/(LOSS) (387) UNREALIZED GAIN/(LOSS) 4,968 DEPOSITS/PURCHASES/FEES - TRANSFER IN/(OUT) -

BALANCE 9/30/03 $2,648,006 $162,700 $1,915,340 $2,3

LAIF LACPIF UBOCClean Water Fund Activity Activity Activity CheckiBALANCE 9/1/03 $446,408 $66,710 $871,468INTEREST RECEIVED/REINVESTED 88 51 REALIZED GAIN/(LOSS) (20) UNREALIZED GAIN/(LOSS) 261 DEPOSITS/PURCHASES/FEES - TRANSFER IN/(OUT) -

BALANCE 9/30/03 $446,408 $66,798 $871,760 $14

LAIF LACPIF UBOC CheckiBALANCE 9/30/03 $3,094,414 $229,498 $2,787,100 $2,4CURRENT YIELD 1.64% 1.33% 5.51% .70%INTEREST EARNED FISCAL YTD $10,068 $790 $56,876GAINS/(LOSSES) REALIZED FISCAL YTD $4,656GAINS/(LOSSES) UNREALIZED FISCAL YTD ($30,353)

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INVESTMENT ACTIONS EXECUTEHAVE BEEN MADE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE INVESTMENAS TREASURER OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF

NOTES: Percent of investments in corporate bonds = 0.0% I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT SUFFICIENT INVESTMENT LIQUIDITY AARE AVAILABLE TO MEET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES FOR THE

The checking balance is swept daily into repurchase agreements that are collateralized asrequired by CA Govt. Code 53601; the current yield on repurchase agreements changes daily.LAIF interest is received quarterly while LACPIF & UBOC interest is received monthly. NORM RYAN, TREASURER DA

AGENDA ITEM NO. VI.F DATE: NOVEMBER 19 2003


FROM: ROBB WHITAKER, GENERAL MANAGER

SUBJECT: FINANCIAL AUDITORS REPORT

Staff will provide a presentation. FISCAL IMPACT: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

For information.


The Finance Committee will review this item at its November 14, 2003 and will make a recommendation to the Board.

AGENDA ITEM NO. VI.G DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2003



SUBJECT: TRAVEL REQUEST – 2003 NATIONAL SALINITY MANAGEMENT AND DESALINATION, DECEMBER 8 - 9, 2003, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

The “2003 National Salinity Management and Desalination Summit” will be held December 8 - 9, 2003. The conference headquarters is the Caesars Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada. Attached is the conference brochure with a preliminary conference program, workshop schedules, and other events. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated cost for registration, lodging, and travel is $860 per person. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorize the attendance of interested

Directors and one staff member to the 2003 National Salinity Management and Desalination Summit, December 8-9, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Water Resources Committee reviewed this item on

November 13, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.

AGENDA ITEM NO. VI.HDATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2003



SUBJECT: ABANDON WRD’S SANTA FE SPRINGS MONITORING WELL

In October 1998, WRD and the U.S. Geological Survey successfully drilled and installed 5 nested monitoring wells known as Santa Fe Springs #1. It is located on a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood owned by the Southern California Water Company (SCWC). Well construction information is as follows:

Nested Well No. Top of Perfs. (ft) Base of Perfs. (ft) Aquifer

1 1,290 1,310 Pico formation 2 825 845 Sunnyside 3 540 560 Sunnyside 4 265 285 Silverado 5 170 190 Lynwood

The wells were installed without incident. About a week later when development of the wells started, an unexpected geyser of mostly high pressure gas and some groundwater erupted from the Well 1 which lasted for three days. Fire Department and sheriff emergency crews and hazardous materials units responded immediately to close off roads and check for hazardous conditions (explosive or toxic gasses). None were found, so the Well was allowed vent until the pressure dissipated enough for us to put a pressure regulating valve on it and cap it.

Wells 2, 3, and 4 were then successfully developed. Well 5 was then attempted and a similar geyser erupted. But it was short lived as the gas geyser turned into a sand geyser followed by a grout geyser until the well plugged itself off presumably due to the grout. WRD interpreted this act as the well screen eroding due to the high pressure gas, which allowed the sand pack to fly out, followed by the grout backfill.

WRD staff are now recommending the abandonment of this well. Useful information was collected during the drilling and e-logging, and 5-years of water quality samples and groundwater elevations have been collected from Wells 1 through 4. However, the integrity of the wells is suspect since the high pressure gas somehow reached from Zone 1 to 5 (possibly through the borehole thus ripping through the gravel pack and grouted zones, which would allow all zones to communicate).

And there is a liability risk to WRD for future eruptions, and this site is next to residences and a school. Plus, the SCWC wants to sell the property, and wants WRD to abandon the well if it is no longer needed

The pumper Technical Advisory Committee reviewed this item at their September 24, 2003, meeting and unanimously agreed to abandon the well.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approximately $20,000


For information.


The Water Resources Committee reviewed this item on November 13, 2003 and recommended bringing this item to the Board on Consent Calendar for information.

AGENDA ITEM NO. VII DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2003



SUBJECT: SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM CITY OF COMMERCE WELL 4 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS

Commerce Well Number 4 located on Garfield Avenue in the City of Commerce is currently affected by Tretrachlorothylene (PCE) and Trichlorothylene (TCE), two volatile organic compounds (VOCs), at levels exceeding the maximum contaminant level allowed by the State of California Department of Health Services (DHS). The well is currently offline due to the contamination. The City of Commerce has requested assistance from WRD through the Safe Drinking Water Program to install a treatment system to treat the well and return it to service. The facility will be built within the boundaries of the well site owned and operated by the City of Commerce. The California Water Service Company will perform the routine operation and maintenance associated with the wellhead treatment system. The system will have the capacity to treat the full flow of the well. The treated water will be disinfected prior to entering the distribution system.

The wellhead treatment system will consist of one complete granular activated carbon unit. A permit to construct and operate will be obtained from the California Department of Health Services and a discharge permit (if needed) will be obtained from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the construction of the facility. WRD consultant Don Howard Engineers is currently working with WRD and the City of Commerce to design the facility and prepare the plans and contract documents. WRD intends to put the construction and equipment out for competitive bid.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The construction cost of the Commerce Well 4 is estimated to be $450,000, an amount exceeding the $300,000 that was included in the 2001-02 budget; however, the City of Commerce has agreed to participate with additional funding over the amount currently budgeted for this project.


That the Board authorize the General Manager to advertise for bids for construction of the Safe Drinking Water Program Treatment Facility for Commerce Well Number 4.


The Groundwater Cleanup Committee reviewed this item on October 6, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.

AGENDA ITEM NO. VIII DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2003



SUBJECT: SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM CITY OF COMMERCE WELL 4 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADOPTION


The wellhead treatment system will consist of one complete granular activated carbon unit. A permit to construct and operate will be obtained from the California Department of Health Services and a discharge permit (if needed) will be obtained from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the construction of the facility.

WRD staff has prepared an Initial Study that concludes that no significant environmental impact is expected from the project. Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the attached environmental documentation in the form of an initial study has been prepared and a public notice has been posted. The 30-day public review period ended August 29, 2003. No comments were received.

FISCAL IMPACT:



That the Board adopt a Negative Declaration for Commerce Well Number 4 Treatment Project.


The Groundwater Cleanup Committee reviewed this item on October 6, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENTATION

FOR

FOR

COMMERCE WELL 4L Located in

COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA

A WRD Safe Drinking Water Program Project

July 2003

INSTALLATION OF GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON FILTERS

FOR TREATMENT OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Commerce Well 4L Project 2

Interested Agencies, Organizations and Individuals NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AVAILABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WELLHEAD TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) has prepared a negative declaration for the Wellhead Treatment Construction for Commerce Well No. 4L for review and comment by the public and local agencies. The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) encompasses the urban coastal plain of Los Angeles County. WRD is a special district vested with the responsibility to manage and protect the groundwater supplies of the Central and West Coast Basins. As part of its Clean Water Programs, WRD has developed a Safe Drinking Water Program designed to provide wellhead treatment to pumpers with affected wells. This enables the pumper to keep an affected well on-line or to bring an otherwise shut down well back on-line and assists in WRD’s effort to clean up existing groundwater contamination at that particular site. The wellhead treatment system will consist of one complete granular activated carbon unit. A permit to construct and operate will be obtained from the California Department of Health Services and a discharge permit (if needed) will be obtained from the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the construction of the facility. The facility will be built within the boundaries of the well site own by the City of Commerce and operated by California Water Service Company. California Water Service Company personnel will perform the routine operation and maintenance associated with this wellhead treatment unit. The system will have the capacity to treat the full flow of the well. The treated water will be disinfected with a chlorination system prior to entering the distribution system. Written comments must be received by August 29, 2003. All written responses to this notice should be sent to: Charlene King Assistant Engineer Water Replenishment District of Southern California 12621 East 166th Street Cerritos, CA 90703 Copies of the document will be available for review at the Water Replenishment District of Southern California.


PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM AT COMMERCE WELL 4L

PROJECT NAME Construction of Wellhead Treatment Unit for Commerce Well 4L ENTITY UNDERTAKING PROJECT Water Replenishment District of Southern California. LOCATION The Commerce well site is located in the City of Commerce at 3317 South Garfield Avenue, Los Angeles County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As part of its Clean Water Programs, WRD has developed a Safe Drinking Water Program designed to provide wellhead treatment to pumpers with affected wells. This enables the pumper to keep an affected well on-line or to bring an otherwise shut down well back on-line and assists in WRD’s effort to clean up existing groundwater contamination by pumping and treating at that particular site. The City of Commerce owns Well 4L and the California Water Service Company operates the facility for the city. The well is currently affected by volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination and has surpassed the maximum contaminant levels (MCL) of 5 parts per billion for Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Tetrachloroethylene (PCE). The Commerce wellhead treatment facility will utilize a Liquid Phase Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) system. A permit to operate the treatment system will be obtained from the California Department of Health Services and a discharge permit (if needed) will be obtained from the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to construction of the facility. This facility will be built within the boundaries of the well site owned by the City of Commerce. The system will have the capacity to treat the full flow of the Commerce Well 4L. The treated water will be disinfected with a chlorination system prior to entering the distribution system. California Water Service Company personnel will perform the routine operation and maintenance associated with this wellhead treatment unit. FINDING The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) Board of Directors having heard, at a public meeting of the District, the comments of any and all concerned persons or entities, including the recommendations of the District staff, does hereby find that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The facts supporting this finding are presented in the attached Initial Environmental Study (IES) prepared for this project and in the


reference material cited in the IES. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the agency that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. The analysis and findings contained in the IES and this Declaration represent the independent judgment of the District. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California held on October , 2003. _____________________________ Willard H. Murray, President ATTEST: _____________________________ Robert Goldsworthy, Secretary


INITIAL STUDY

BACKGROUND

1. Name of Proponent(s):

Water Replenishment District of Southern California City of Commerce California Water Service Company

2. Name of Lead Agency:

Water Replenishment District of Southern California

3. Address and phone number of Lead Agency:

12621 East 166th Street Cerritos, California 90703 (562) 921-5521

4. Date of Initial Study:

April 10, 2003

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Description of the project:

The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) encompasses the urban coastal plain of Los Angeles County. WRD is a special district vested with the responsibility to manage and protect the groundwater supplies of the Central and West Coast Basins. Currently, some water wells in the WRD service area are affected by groundwater contamination. California Water Service Company operates Commerce Well No. 4L for the City of Commerce, which is currently affected by volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination. This well has surpassed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 parts per billion for Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and is currently off-line. As part of its Clean Water Programs, WRD has developed a Safe Drinking Water Program designed to provide wellhead treatment to pumpers with affected wells. This enables the pumper to keep an affected well on-line or to bring an otherwise shut down well back on-line and assists in WRD’s effort to clean up existing groundwater contamination by pumping and treating at that particular site.


Commerce Well No. 4L is located at 3317 South Garfield Avenue. The well site is in located in an industrial area. The Commerce wellhead treatment unit will consist of a Liquid Phase Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) system. Liquid Phase GAC treatment is a technology used to remove organic contaminants from the groundwater. Groundwater is pumped through one or more vessels containing GAC. Thermal processing of carbon creates small porous particles with a large internal surface area. This attribute makes it activated. The activated carbon attracts and absorbs the contaminant molecules, allowing water to pass through the vessels relatively quickly. When the carbon is exhausted from the vessel, the carbon must be replaced. The spent carbon is replaced with newly activated carbon. A permit to operate the treatment system will be obtained from the California Department of Health Services. This facility will be built within the boundaries of the well sites owned by the City of Commerce and operated by California Water Service Company. The system will have the capacity to treat the full flow of the well. The treated water will be disinfected with a chlorination system prior to entering the distribution system. California Water Service Company personnel will perform the routine operation and maintenance associated with this wellhead treatment unit.

2. Identification of the environmental setting:

The well site is located on a .38 acre lot at 3317 South Garfield Avenue. The well site is bordered by industrial property. See attached site map.

3. Identification of environmental effects:

See attached Environmental Checklist.

4. Discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified:

No significant effects were identified in the Initial Study.

5. Examination of whether or not the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other land use controls: Appropriate use, construction and operating permit applications will be filed with the appropriate agencies.


6. Name(s) of person(s) who prepared or participated in the Initial Study:

Kavous Emami, PE Assistant General Manager/Manager of Operations and Construction Water Replenishment District of Southern California 12621 East 166th Street Cerritos, California 90703 (562) 921-5521 Charlene King Assistant Engineer Water Replenishment District of Southern California 12621 East 166th Street Cerritos, California 90703 (562) 921-5521 David Karraker, P.E. District Manager California Water Service Company 5243 East Sheila Street Los Angeles, California 90040 (323) 263-4145 Katherine Brophy Water Quality Project Manager California Water Service Company 2632 W. 27th Street Torrance, California 90505 (310) 257-1486 John Bosler, P.E. Don Howard Engineers 599 S. Barranca Ave. Suite 573 Covina, CA 91723 (626) 331-3341


Environmental Checklist Form

1. Project title: Commerce Well 4L Wellhead Treatment Facility Project

2. Lead agency name and address: Water Replenishment District of Southern California 12621 E. 166th Street, Cerritos, CA 90703

3. Contact person and phone number: Ms. Charlene King (562) 921-5521

4. Project location: 3317 South Garfield Avenue, Commerce, CA, LA County

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Water Replenishment District of Southern California 12621 E. 166th Street, Cerritos, CA 90703

6. General plan designation: Utility Site 7. Zoning: Industrial

8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) This site is an existing water supply utility site owned by the City of Commerce. See Initial Study—Section 2 (Project Information) The proposed activities include the following items: 1. Modify the existing piping 2. Installation of one complete granular activated carbon filtration system, backwash tank & associated piping

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings) This existing site is in an industrial area on Garfield between Bandini Boulevard and East

Slauson Avenue.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing, approval, or participation agreement.) California Department of Health Services LA County Sanitation District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing


2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance


SAMPLE QUESTIONS Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

I. AESTHETICS—Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

III. AIR QUALITY—Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?


b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?


V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately

supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?


HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would

the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?


b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project:


a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

X. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

XI. NOISE—Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the project expose people


residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

XIV. RECREATION—

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational

facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?


XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project:

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?


e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT This section considers impacts of the proposed project, including short- and long-term impacts of project actions (construction and operation), and indirect (secondary) impacts from projects actions. The analysis presented in this section evaluates whether or not there is potential for significant environmental impacts to occur as a result of the proposed project. This section, as with all sections in this document, is structured to conform to environmental documentation requirements. For each issue area, a description of thresholds of significance is provided. These thresholds provide guidance in the Lead Agency’s determination as to whether there is potential for significant effects on the environment. One of the following four responses is provided for each issue with regard to the significance of any identified environmental effects:

g) No Impact. The proposed project will not have any measurable impact on the environmental factor being analyzed (e.g., the project will not discharge into a municipal drinking water supply, therefore there will be no impacts on drinking water quality).

h) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will have the potential for impacting

the environmental factor under consideration, although this impact will be below established thresholds (e.g. the project will result in discharge to surface waters, but it is not expected that such discharge will result in exceedance of established water quality standards).

i) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will

have the potential to generate impacts that result in exceedance of the threshold significance criteria, but measures such as a change in project design will mitigate such impacts to levels that are less than significant.

j) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will have impacts that are

considered significant. Additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Generally, the above responses are considered only in relation to adverse impacts of a project. It is possible that a project may have one or more beneficial impacts on the resource in question, and discussion of mitigation is not meaningful. In such cases, beneficial impacts are identified in the analysis but are evaluated to be less than significant for purposes of the Environmental Checklist. An explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).


CEQA Supplemental Information – Impact Analysis The following sections provide explanation of responses to the referenced Checklist questions. I. Aesthetics A, B, C, and D. No Impact. The project will be built within an enclosed existing well site and will not impact aesthetic resources or affect the existing visual character of the area. II. Agriculture Resources A, B, and C. No Impact. The project site is not located in an agricultural use area, therefore this issue is not applicable. III. Air Quality Significance Criteria Project actions are evaluated in reference to the following: A. Conflict with or obstruction of implementation of an applicable air quality plan; B. Violation of any ambient air quality standard, or contribute to an existing or projected air

quality violation; C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the

project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;

D. Exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants; E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established emissions thresholds for a number of criteria pollutants. These thresholds apply to both short-term (construction-related) emissions and long-term (operational emissions). A, B, C, and D. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the project would generate short-term exhaust emissions from construction equipment and motor vehicles. Excavation and compaction of soil for the laying of pipe and the installation of concrete base pads will be required, and based on AQMD Rule 403 FUGTIVE DUST, this as well as other site preparation activities would generate fugitive dust of a short-term, temporary nature. However, the short-term emissions from vehicles and fugitive dust are not expected to violate South Coast Air Quality Management District’s existing or projected air quality standards, nor affect a potentially sensitive receptor (dwellings) located adjacent to the project site.


The GAC facility is a closed treatment system, therefore, there will be no impact to air emissions during normal operations. E. No Impact. The GAC facility is a closed treatment system and it is not possible for objectionable odors to be released. No impact will occur. IV. Biological Resources A, B, C, D, E, and F. No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area on an existing well site that has been previously cleared and leveled, and is not located in a conservation plan area. No impacts to biological resources will occur. V. Cultural Resources A, B, C, and D. No Impact. The project site is located on an existing water facility and will not impact historical, paleontological, or archaeological resources. VI. Geology and Soils A, C, and D. No Impact. The project site is located on an existing water facility site, upon which a well and related facilities have already been constructed. The site is not located within a fault zone, landslide area, or area of expansive soils, therefore no exposure of people or structures to these hazards will occur. B. Less Than Significant Impact. If construction is delayed into the winter season, site preparation would potentially result in some soil erosion due to runoff. In this case, standard erosion control procedures will be in place and erosion impacts will be less than significant. E. No Impact. The project will not affect the ability of the soil to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, therefore this issue is not applicable. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials A, B, and C. Less Than Significant Impact.


Chlorine has been, and will continue to be used for disinfection of treated drinking water. The solution is classified as a corrosive liquid. Accidental release of chlorine has been evaluated and is addressed in the “Hazardous Materials Business Plan” on file with Los Angeles County Fire Department. The storage tank of the Chlorine solution has a secondary container as required by the Uniform Fire Code, which is designed to prevent the release of the solution into the environment. Transport and handling of the solution will follow specified handling procedures and OSHA requirements. Therefore no significant hazard to the public or personnel is expected. On a periodic basis, spent carbon from the GAC facility will need to be replaced with newly activated carbon. Due to the fact that the carbon filter will be used to remove carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene from groundwater, it is anticipated that the spent carbon will have these contaminants. Handling, transportation, and disposal of the spent carbon will comply with all federal, state, and local statutes with regard to the contaminants, therefore no significant hazard to the public or personnel is expected. D, E, F, and H. No Impact. The site is not located on a hazardous materials site, nor is it located within two miles of an airport, nor in the vicinity of a private airstrip or wildland area, therefore these issues are not applicable. G. Less Than Significant Impact. Site preparation and construction may temporarily result in an increase in traffic in the immediate vicinity of the project site, due to entry/exit of construction vehicles. However it is not expected that this temporary condition will impair or physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans of the nearby high school or businesses of the area. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality A, G, H, I, and J. No Impact. A discharge permit will be obtained from the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the construction of the facility. The project is not located in a flood hazard area or area subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts to water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or exposure of people or structures to floods and related hazards will occur. B. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will enable a groundwater extraction well that is currently off-line to go on-line; therefore groundwater extraction from the water table will be incrementally increased. However, this incremental increase is not expected to exceed that which existed prior to the well contamination when the well was on-line.


C, D, E, and F. Less Than Significant Impact. If construction is delayed into the winter season, site preparation would potentially result in some soil erosion due to runoff. Excavation and compaction of soil for the laying of pipe and the installation of concrete base pads will also be required. In this case, standard erosion control procedures will be in place and impacts on water quality will be less than significant. The facility, after construction, will result in no increase in the amount of impervious surface on the site and therefore in surface runoff. The facility will connect to an existing stormwater system; however, impacts to drainage, stormwater systems, and water quality are not expected to be significant. IX. Land Use and Planning A, B, and C. No Impact. The project is located on an existing well site that will not conflict with general plan designation or zoning. The project site will be compatible with existing land use and have no impact on the physical arrangement of an established community. There is no habitat or natural community conservation plan that is applicable to the site location. X. Mineral Resources No Impact. There are no valuable or locally important mineral resources on the site and therefore the project will not impact these resources. XI. Noise A, C, D. Less Than Significant Impact. The noise generated from construction and operation of this facility will be common noise for pipeline and water facility construction and operation. Construction noises will be short-term and will occur only during normal working hours. The temporary additional noise from the construction associated with this project, and periodic noise associated with personnel vehicles and other activities required for maintenance and operation of the facility, are not expected to be significant compared to existing noise levels from the current site use. B, E, F. No Impact. The project will not generate groundborne noise, nor is it located within two miles of an airport or in the vicinity of an airstrip, therefore these issues are not applicable. XII. Population and Housing No Impact. Project personnel will not reside on the project site, nor will construction of the facility displace people or housing.


XIII. Public Services A. No Impact. The project will not require personnel to reside on site, or result in potential for fire or public safety hazard. Therefore the project will not alter existing services, or require new facilities, for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. No impacts to these services will occur. XIV. Recreation A, B. No Impact. The project will not require personnel to reside on site or otherwise create conditions under which existing parks and other recreational facilities would be utilized. No impacts to these resources will occur. XV. Transportation/Traffic A, B, E. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and site preparation will potentially generate a temporary increase in traffic on Garfield Avenue due to entry/exit of construction vehicles to/from the project site. However, this temporary condition is not expected to significantly affect existing traffic loads and capacity of the street system, levels of service, or emergency access on Gage Avenue. The contractor will be required to adhere to all safety measures including but not limited to a special person designated to direct entry/exit traffic. C, D, F, and G. No Impact. The project will not affect air traffic patterns or increase hazards due to design features. All maintenance and operation personnel will park on site on a temporary basis as needed. The project will not require any increase in parking capacity of the area or result in inadequate parking capacity. The project will not conflict with alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems A, D, and E. No Impact. The project will not generate wastewater, or require new water supplies or entitlements, therefore impacts to these resources will not occur. B and C. Less Than Significant Impact. The project consists of construction of a new water treatment facility in order to address an existing problem of water contamination. The construction is therefore expected to have beneficial environmental effects. The facility will result in no


increase in impervious surface and therefore runoff from the site. This facility will require connecting to the existing storm water drainage system. A discharge permit will be obtained from the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the construction of the facility. F and G. Less Than Significant Impact. On a periodic basis, spent carbon from the GAC facility will need to be replaced with newly activated carbon. Due to the fact that the carbon filter will be used to remove tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene from groundwater, it is anticipated that the spent carbon will have the contaminants. Disposal of the spent carbon will comply with all federal, state, and local statutes with regard to this contaminant, and is not expected to significantly affect the capacity of the disposal facility to which it is transported. XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. No Impact. The CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of potential cumulative impacts that could result from a proposed project in conjunction with others in the vicinity. The cumulative impact of several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects. (Guidelines Section 15355).

The vicinity is defined by the immediate areas surrounding the proposed project site. Based on past and current similar projects, this project should have no incremental effect and thus is not significant. The environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented.

The project will have a beneficial impact on the environment by treating an existing water contamination problem, and therefore will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. B and C. Less Than Significant. Project construction, operation, and maintenance has the potential to cause temporary and/or periodic effects on fugitive dust, soil erosion, and traffic, but these effects are expected to be negligible in comparison to the existing conditions of this urbanized environment. Adverse project impacts, whether direct or indirect, on the environment and on human beings will be less than significant.


SITE MAP INSERT

SDWP Commerce Well 4 Agreement Page 1 of 2 Board of Directors, November 19, 2003

AGENDA ITEM NO. IX




SUBJECT: SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM CITY OF COMMERCE WELL 4 TREATMENT PROJECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMMERCE AND WRD


The wellhead treatment system will consist of one complete granular activated carbon unit. A permit to construct and operate will be obtained from the California Department of Health Services and a discharge permit (if needed) will be obtained from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the construction of the facility.

This item was reviewed by the Groundwater Cleanup Committee on October 6, 2003 and further research was requested in terms of the agreement content for the project as well as the overall Safe Drinking Water Policy. Staff and District Counsel provided the findings of this research to the Water Resources Committee on November 13, 2003.

SDWP Commerce Well 4 Agreement Page 2 of 2 Board of Directors, November 19, 2003

FISCAL IMPACT:



That the Board execute an agreement with the City of Commerce, upon approval by District Counsel as to form, for an amount not to exceed $300,000 for a treatment system to remove VOCs from Commerce Well Number 4.


The Water Resources Committee reviewed this item on November 13, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.

436695.4

WELLHEAD TREATMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF COMMERCE

AND

THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

(Rev. 11/13/03)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Water Replenishment District of Page i Draft Commerce Wellhead Southern California Treatment Agreement 436695.4

Recitals ........................................................................................................................... 1

Agreement....................................................................................................................... 2

ARTICLE 1 – DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................... 2

ARTICLE 2 – WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS.............................................. 2 2.1 City’s Warranties and Representations ................................................................ 2 2.2 WRD’s Warranties and Representations .............................................................. 3

ARTICLE 3 – GENERAL PURPOSE............................................................................... 3

ARTICLE 4 – ACCESS TO PROJECT SITE; GRANT OF LICENSE .............................. 3

ARTICLE 5 – PERMITS AND APPROVALS ................................................................... 3 5.1 CEQA Compliance ............................................................................................... 3 5.2 Building Permit ..................................................................................................... 3 5.3 Other Permits ....................................................................................................... 4

ARTICLE 6 – PROJECT DESIGN................................................................................... 4 6.1 Preparation of Project Design............................................................................... 4 6.2 Approval of Project Design ................................................................................... 5

ARTICLE 7 – PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.................................................................... 5 7.1 Advertising for Bids and Award of Contract .......................................................... 5 7.2 Insurance and Bonds............................................................................................ 6 7.3 Construction in Accordance with Project Design and Applicable Laws ................ 6 7.4 WRD to Keep City Reasonably Informed ............................................................. 6 7.5 Project Acceptance, Turnover and Ownership ..................................................... 7

ARTICLE 8 – REIMBURSEMENT BY CITY TO WRD OF EXCESS PROJECT PERMITTING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIONS COSTS ............................................ 7 8.1 WRD Budget for Project Permitting, Design and Construction ............................. 7 8.2 WRD Payment of Project Permitting, Design and Construction Costs ................. 7 8.3 City Reimbursement of Amounts Exceeding WRD Budget .................................. 8

ARTICLE 9 – PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................................ 8 9.1 City to Operate and Maintain Project and Achieve Groundwater Production

Requirement ......................................................................................................... 8 9.2 Insurance.............................................................................................................. 9

ARTICLE 10 – INDEMNITY ............................................................................................ 9 10.1 WRD’s Indemnity Obligations ............................................................................... 9 10.2 City’s Indemnity Obligations ................................................................................. 9

ARTICLE 11 – DEFAULT AND TERMINATION.............................................................. 9 11.1 WRD’s Right to Terminate for Convenience......................................................... 9 11.2 WRD’s Right to Terminate for Default ................................................................ 10 11.3 Termination or Suspension by City..................................................................... 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Water Replenishment District of Page ii Draft Commerce Wellhead Southern California Treatment Agreement 436695.4

ARTICLE 12 – MISCELLANEOUS................................................................................ 12 12.1 No Third Party Beneficiaries ............................................................................... 12 12.2 Assignment......................................................................................................... 12 12.3 Notices ............................................................................................................... 13 12.4 Amendments ...................................................................................................... 13 12.5 Integration .......................................................................................................... 13 12.6 Construction ....................................................................................................... 13 12.7 Governing Law ................................................................................................... 13 12.8 Attorneys’ Fees................................................................................................... 14 12.9 Successors and Assigns .................................................................................... 14 12.10 Authority ............................................................................................................. 14

Water Replenishment District of Page 1 Commerce Wellhead Southern California Treatment Agreement 436695.4

WELLHEAD TREATMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COMMERCE

AND THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

This Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of ____________, 200__ by and between the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (“WRD”) and the City of Commerce ("City"), which are referred to collectively herein as the “Parties” and individually as “Party.”

Recitals A. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has vested in WRD the statutory responsibility to manage, regulate, replenish, and protect the quality of groundwater supplies within the WRD’s boundaries. B. WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) and the State of California Department of Health Services (“DOHS”) have adopted primary drinking water standards and recommended action levels, respectively, which include limits for certain volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”). Water containing VOC concentrations in excess of USEPA standards and/or DOHS recommended action levels has been determined by USEPA and DOHS not to be suitable for municipal domestic purposes. C. WHEREAS, recent surveys of groundwater quality within the WRD’s boundaries used for municipal supply have shown an increasing concentration of VOCs. D. WHEREAS, the City owns a water distribution system for the purpose of delivering potable water to its customers within the WRD’s boundaries. E. WHEREAS, the City has lost the use of a groundwater production well identified as Well No. 4 (the “Project Well”), located within the WRD’s boundaries at 3317 Garfield Avenue, Commerce, California (the “Project Site”), due to the presence of VOCs in quantities exceeding USEPA and/or DOHS standards and action levels. F. WHEREAS, the WRD, pursuant to its Clean Water Program, desires to install equipment for the removal of VOCs from Project Well groundwater, and the City desires to operate and maintain the Project Well, all as more fully set forth herein.

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and WRD agree as follows:


Agreement ARTICLE 1 – DEFINITIONS Applicable Laws means all applicable federal, state and local statutes, laws, regulations, ordinances, approvals, permits and governing agreements. City means the City of Commerce. Day or days, whether capitalized or not, shall refer to calendar days. If any time period prescribed in this Agreement falls on a weekend or other holiday, the time period shall be extended to the next business day. DOHS means the State of California Department of Health Services. Governmental Agencies means federal, state and local public agencies and entities including, without limitation, the United States, the State of California, cities, counties, districts, boards, commissions and authorities. Groundwater Production Requirement refers to City’s obligation to operate and maintain the completed Project in accordance with all Applicable Laws and Project operating and maintenance manuals so as to produce _________ gallons/acre feet per day/month/year from the Project Well. USEPA means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. VOCs means Volatile Organic Compounds. WRD means the Water Replenishment District of Southern California. WRD Budget means the dollar amount of WRD’s budget for the performance of WRD’s obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 2 – WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS 2.1 City’s Warranties and Representations 2.1.1 The City represents and warrants that it is the owner of the Project Well and

Project Site and that it requires no permit, approval or other consent from any third party in order to enter into this Agreement.

2.1.2 The City represents and warrants that it is fully empowered to enter into this

Agreement and is doing so in full accordance with its governing laws, regulations and ordinances.


2.2 WRD’s Warranties and Representations 2.2.1 WRD represents and warrants that it is fully empowered to enter into this

Agreement and is doing so in full accordance with its enabling statutes and Administrative Code.

ARTICLE 3 – GENERAL PURPOSE It is the purpose of the Parties in entering into this Agreement that WRD shall cause a Granular Activated Carbon water treatment system, including all necessary piping, pumps and related improvements (the “Project”) to be designed and installed upon the Project Well to remove VOCs from groundwater extracted therefrom, and that City shall thereafter operate the Project so as to produce treated groundwater in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. ARTICLE 4 – ACCESS TO PROJECT SITE; GRANT OF LICENSE The City hereby grants to WRD, including its engineers, consultants, contractors, employees, agents and representatives, a license to enter upon and use the Project Site and Project Well for all purposes reasonably required for WRD to perform its obligations and to exercise its rights under this Agreement. Said license shall include the right to enter upon the Project Site upon no more than twenty-four (24) hours prior written notice to observe and inspect the Project including, without limitation, the rights to inspect the Project’s operation and maintenance, and to conduct tests of raw groundwater extracted from the Project Well and groundwater treated by the Project. The term of the license granted under this Article shall be for the same term as this Agreement. ARTICLE 5 – PERMITS AND APPROVALS 5.1 CEQA Compliance WRD shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for CEQA compliance. It is WRD’s understanding that such compliance for the Project may be achieved by negative declaration. WRD may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement for its convenience if CEQA compliance for the Project is more costly, time consuming or otherwise burdensome than anticipated by WRD. Such termination shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of written notice of such termination by WRD to CITY. City shall not be entitled to compensation, damages or payments of any kind whatsoever in the event of such termination. 5.2 Building Permit WRD shall cause its Contractor to obtain a building or construction permit for the construction services described herein.


5.3 Other Permits Except as expressly provided elsewhere in this Agreement, City shall, at its cost and in its name, obtain all permits, licenses and approvals necessary for the construction and operation of the Project. City shall be identified as the applicant, permitee, operator and owner in all such permits, licenses and approvals. 5.3.1 WRD acknowledges that the costs of permits including, but not limited to, the

sewer discharge permit, have not yet been determined. The City shall advise WRD of the permit costs within five (5) days of ascertaining the total amount of said permit costs. If, after ascertaining the costs of permits, the City determines, in its sole discretion, that the costs are unacceptable to the City, the City may terminate this Agreement on written notice to WRD given within ten (10) days after notifying WRD of such costs. If the City fails to terminate this Agreement within said ten (10) days City shall be deemed to have approved the costs of the permits.

ARTICLE 6 – PROJECT DESIGN 6.1 Preparation of Project Design 6.1.1 WRD shall, in accordance with its enabling statutes and Administrative Code,

cause a design for the Project to be prepared by a registered engineer (the “Project Design”). The Project Design shall include all earthwork, structures, piping, appurtenances, disinfection and electrical and mechanical controls necessary to convey groundwater from the Project Well to the City’s distribution system.

6.1.2 The Project Design shall be for a treatment system of sufficient size and

capacity that groundwater extracted from the Project Well and treated by the Project shall meet or exceed USEPA and DOHS water quality standards for VOCs and achieve the Groundwater Production Requirement.

6.1.3 The City at its cost shall provide to WRD all groundwater test data, plans,

reports, maps, records and other information describing, depicting or relating to the Project Site and Project Well for WRD’s use in preparing the Project Design.

.1 Information to be provided by City shall include any and all City

requirements to be incorporated into the Project Design and/or construction including, without limitation, requirements pertaining to any height, noise, aesthetic or other restrictions, restrictions on working hours or working days, site access for construction and maintenance, use of the Project Site for temporary facilities and/or storage during construction, availability of temporary utilities during construction and


known subsurface utilities and other structures that may interfere with the work of the Project.

6.2 Approval of Project Design 6.2.1 WRD shall transmit the Project Design to the City for the City’s review and

approval before soliciting bids for construction of the Project, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City’s approval of the Project Design shall be given by written notice to WRD. The approval process shall be as follows:

.1 The City shall be deemed to have approved any portion of the Project

Design as to which the City fails to transmit written objections to WRD within fifteen (15) days of the date on which the Project Design was received by the City.

.2 In the event the City timely disapproves of any portion of the Project

Design, WRD and the City shall meet and confer within five (5) working days or other mutually agreed upon period in a good faith effort to modify the Project Design so as to resolve the concerns raised by the City. Any revisions to the Project Design shall thereafter be transmitted to the City for its prior review and approval.

.3 In the event that WRD and the City are unable to modify the Project

Design so as to resolve concerns raised by the City in its timely written disapproval, either party may terminate this Agreement by ten (10) days written notice to the other Party.

6.2.2 The City’s approval of the Project Design shall be an approval of the location,

configuration and appearance of the Project and shall not constitute a warranty or representation that the Project will be capable of achieving USEPA or DOHS water quality standards for VOCs or capable of achieving the groundwater Production Requirement.

ARTICLE 7 – PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 7.1 Advertising for Bids and Award of Contract WRD shall be the contracting owner for purposes of constructing the Project. WRD shall advertise for bids and award a construction contract for the Project in accordance with the WRD’s enabling statutes and Administrative Code. WRD shall provide City with access to all bids received for the Project and shall consult with City prior to awarding any contract for construction of the Project.


7.2 Insurance and Bonds WRD shall require its contractor to maintain all insurance and bonds required by Applicable Laws during construction of the Project. WRD shall, in addition, require its contractor to maintain comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000, issued by an admitted carrier acceptable to WRD and naming the City, including its officers, directors and employees as additional insureds. 7.3 Construction in Accordance with Project Design and Applicable Laws WRD shall cause the Project to be constructed and completed in accordance with the Project Design and Applicable Laws governing the construction of projects in California similar in size, complexity and purpose. 7.4 WRD to Keep City Reasonably Informed 7.4.1 WRD shall keep City reasonably informed of the status of construction

activities and shall provide City with access to WRD’s construction books and records upon reasonable request.

.1 WRD shall provide the City with a copy of its contractor’s construction

schedule promptly after it is received. City shall promptly thereafter notify WRD in writing of any objections or other concerns it may have regarding the proposed construction schedule.

.2 WRD shall promptly provide the City with copies of all formal notices

received from the Project contractor regarding the Project. WRD shall timely provide the City with copies of all invoices submitted by WRD’s contractor for payment for Project work.

.3 WRD shall provide the City with all change requests received from the

Project contractor and shall meet and confer with the City before approving any substantial changes to the construction contract for the Project.

.4 WRD shall notify the City at least 48 hours in advance of the delivery

and/or installation of major Project components so that City may inspect or observe such activities.

.5 WRD shall notify the City at least 48 hours in advance before the

commencement of testing and start-up operations so that City may inspect or observe such activities. WRD shall provide the City with copies of all test and sample reports obtained during Project testing and start-up.


.6 WRD shall notify the City at least 48 hours in advance before conducting final inspection of the Project so that City may inspect or observe such activities.

7.5 Project Acceptance, Turnover and Ownership 7.5.1 WRD shall give the City written notice of WRD’s proposed acceptance of the

Project when all of the work of the Project, including testing and start-up, have been completed. Upon City’s written concurrence that the Project has been completed, WRD will file its Notice of Completion and shall promptly thereafter provide the City with the following, as applicable:

.1 A record copy of the Project Design showing the as-built condition of

the Project. .2 All manufacturers’ warranties, if any. .3 All operation and maintenance manuals, if any. .4 All groundwater quality test results for tests conducted by WRD or its

contractor or consultants, if any.

7.5.2 Within ten (10) days after the filing by WRD of a Notice of Completion as provided herein, or such later time as WRD may request, the Parties shall execute a Quitclaim Deed, Quitclaim Bill of Sale and Quitclaim Assignment in the form provided at Exhibit A to this Agreement.

ARTICLE 8 – REIMBURSEMENT BY CITY TO WRD OF EXCESS PROJECT PERMITTING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIONS COSTS 8.1 WRD Budget for Project Permitting, Design and Construction The WRD Budget for performing its permitting, design and construction obligations under this Agreement is Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000). 8.2 WRD Payment of Project Permitting, Design and Construction Costs WRD shall be responsible, in the first instance, for paying all costs incurred to perform its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of this Agreement. WRD shall maintain good and sufficient records of such costs in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and will make such records available to City for inspection and coping upon reasonable request. WRD will promptly forward copies of invoices received from third parties for such costs to City.


8.3 City Reimbursement of Amounts Exceeding WRD Budget Upon WRD’s issuance of its Notice of Completion of the Project, WRD shall transmit to City a final accounting of costs incurred by WRD to perform its Project Design, Permitting and Construction obligations as set forth in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of this Agreement. The accounting shall indicate the amount by which such costs exceed the WRD Budget and the City, within forty-five (45) days of receipt of such accounting, shall pay such excess to WRD. ARTICLE 9 – PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 9.1 City to Operate and Maintain Project and Achieve Groundwater

Production Requirement For a term of ten (10) years commencing on the date of WRD’s issuance of a Notice of Completion of construction of the Project, the City shall, at its sole cost and expense, operate, maintain and repair the Project Facilities in accordance with all Applicable Laws, the standard of care for the operation, maintenance and repair of similar facilities in California, and in accordance with Project operations and maintenance manuals, all so as to achieve the Groundwater Production Requirement. 9.1.1 The City shall be responsible for making all necessary and appropriate

inquiries of manufacturers, other industry specialists and Governmental Agencies with jurisdiction over the Project to insure proper maintenance and operation of the Project.

9.1.2 The City shall, at all times, provide personnel sufficient in number and

qualifications to properly operate and maintain the Project. 9.1.3 The City shall be responsible for performing all sampling and testing of water

produced from the Project Well required by Applicable Laws. The City shall timely provide the District with copies of all such water sample and test reports and related information.

9.1.4 The City shall provide WRD with copies of all official notices or reports

received or transmitted by City regarding the Project or Project Well. 9.1.5 The City shall maintain good and sufficient records of its operation and

maintenance activities, including records demonstrating achievement of the Groundwater Production Requirement, in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and the standard of care for operating similar facilities in California. The City shall make such documents available to WRD for inspection and copying upon reasonable request.


9.1.6 The City shall be responsible for ensuring that the Project is operated in compliance with all Applicable Laws, regulations, permits and approvals including, without limitation, those relating to water quality.

9.2 Insurance The City shall at all times commencing after issuance of the Notice of Completion of construction of the Project, and for the remaining term of this Agreement, maintain all insurance required by Applicable Laws for the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 10 – INDEMNITY 10.1 WRD’s Indemnity Obligations WRD shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, including City’s elected officials, officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, causes of action, damages, injuries (including, without limitation, injuries to real and personal property and personal injuries, including death) and expenses of any kind, including attorneys’ fees, arising from or relating to WRD’s negligence, willful misconduct, breach of its obligations under this Agreement or failure to comply with Applicable Laws. 10.2 City’s Indemnity Obligations The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the WRD, including WRD’s elected officials, officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, causes of action, damages, injuries (including, without limitation, injuries to real and personal property and personal injuries, including death) and expenses of any kind, including attorneys’ fees, arising from or relating to City’s negligence, willful misconduct, breach of its obligations under this Agreement or failure to comply with Applicable Laws. ARTICLE 11 – DEFAULT AND TERMINATION 11.1 WRD’s Right to Terminate for Convenience 11.1.1 WRD shall have the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement

without cause for its convenience upon twenty (20) days written notice to City at any time prior to commencement of physical construction of the Project or after issuance of the Notice of Completion of the Project. In the event of a termination under this Section, neither Party shall be entitled to payment, compensation or damages in any amount whatsoever from the other Party.

11.1.2 WRD shall have the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate this agreement

without cause for its convenience upon ten (10) days written notice to City at


any time after physical construction of the Project has commenced and before issuance of the Notice of Completion of the Project. In the event of a termination under this Section, WRD shall, to the extent practical, cause the Project Well and Project Site to be restored to their condition prior to commencement of construction. In the event of a termination under this Section, neither party shall be entitled to payment, compensation or damages in any amount whatsoever from the other party.

11.2 WRD’s Right to Terminate for Default 11.2.1 WRD may provide written notice to City of its intent to terminate this

Agreement for default in the event WRD reasonably believes City has materially breached its operations or maintenance or other obligations under this Agreement.

.1 Any notice under this Section shall specifically describe the obligation

alleged to have been breached and the facts and circumstance of such breach.

.2 Any notice under this Section shall indicate that if City does not cure

the default in question within twenty (20) days, the Agreement shall terminate.

(a) In the event of a default that by its nature cannot be cured within

twenty days, the City must provide WRD with notice of City’s intent to cure, its schedule for doing so, and the City must actually commence such cure within said twenty-day period. If, in WRD’s reasonable judgment, City fails to diligently prosecute such cure to completion, WRD may thereafter terminate this Agreement for default by ten (10) days written notice without providing City with any further opportunity to cure.

.3 Unless City has cured or commenced to cure any default within twenty

days of WRD’s service of a notice of intent to terminate for default, this Agreement shall terminate on the twentieth day following such notice.

.4 Following WRD’s termination for default by City, City shall pay for

disassembly and relocation of the Project to a site designated by WRD. 11.2.2 In the event this Agreement is terminated by WRD for City’s default, City shall

reimburse WRD in the amount of the straight line depreciated value of the Project not exceeding the WRD Budget as of the year in which the termination occurs as follows:

Year 1: $ 270,000 Year 2: $ 240,000


Year 3: $ 210,000 Year 4: $ 180,000 Year 5: $ 150,000 Year 6: $ 120,000 Year 7: $ 90,000 Year 8: $ 60,000 Year 9: $ 30,000 Year 10: $ 0

11.2.3 Except as expressly provided in Section 11.2, neither Party shall be entitled to

payment, compensation or damages in any amount whatsoever from the other party in the event of a termination by WRD for City’s default.

11.3 Termination or Suspension by City 11.3.1 City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for cause upon twenty

(20) days written notice to WRD only upon the occurrence of any one of the following events:

.1 Destruction of the Project due to earthquake, fire or other acts of god

or third parties not due in whole or part to City’s negligence or willful misconduct or breach of its obligations under this Agreement.

.2 The discovery of contaminants or other constituents in groundwater

extracted from the Project Well that cannot be removed by the Project and that prevent the groundwater from being put to its intended use under Applicable Laws without a significant capital improvement to the Project.

11.3.2 City shall have the right to suspend performance of its obligations under this

Agreement upon twenty (20) days written notice to WRD, or such shorter time as may be required by an emergency or other exigent circumstances, upon the occurrence of any one of the following circumstances: .1 The discovery of a latent design or construction defect in the Project

that renders the Project incapable of performing its intended function. .2 A breakdown or other malfunction in the Project that is not due to City’s

negligence or willful misconduct or breach of its obligations under this Agreement and that will require more than ten (10) days to repair.

.3 City’s reasonable belief that continued delivery of groundwater from

the Project to the City’s water distribution system, without further investigation and inquiry, presents a risk to public health.


Upon receipt by WRD of any notice of suspension by City, WRD and City shall meet and confer to verify the cause of the suspension and to determine whether it can be removed with reasonable expense and effort. Upon removal of the cause for any suspension under this Section, City shall be required to achieve the pro rata Groundwater Production Requirement for the portion of any year during which the suspension was not in effect. If the cause of the suspension cannot be removed with reasonable expense and effort, then the City may terminate this Agreement by giving notice thereof in accordance with Section 11.3.1 of this Agreement.

11.3.3 The Parties understand and agree that their purpose in entering into this Agreement will be frustrated if this Agreement is termintated by City. Accordingly, WRD shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remove all or a portion of the Project following City’s termination of this Agreement.

.1 WRD must give written notice of intention to remove all or a portion of

the Project no later than sixty (60) days after WRD’s receipt of City’s notice of termination. The City shall thereafter grant WRD (including its agents, representatives and contractors) permission, subject to any reasonable restrictions the City may require, to enter upon the Project Site to remove all or a portion of the Project. Said removal will be at WRD’s sole cost and expense and WRD must leave the the Project Site in a neat, safe and orderly condition.

.2 The Parties agree that, upon WRD’s exercise of its right to remove all

or a portion of the Project under this Section, the Parties will be deemed to have rescinded this Agreement, and the City shall convey to WRD City’s interest in the Project or portion of the Project removed by WRD by executing a Quitclaim Deed, Quitclaim Bill of Sale and Quitclaim Assignment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.

ARTICLE 12 – MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 No Third Party Beneficiaries Except as expressly provided herein, there are no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement. 12.2 Assignment This Agreement may not be assigned without the non-assigning Party’s prior express written consent.


12.3 Notices Any notice, instrument, payment or document required to be given or delivered under this Agreement shall be given to the following in a manner that provides for proof of delivery using the most expeditious means warranted by the circumstances: If to WRD:

Water Replenishment District of Southern California 12621 E. 166th Street Cerritos, CA 90703 Phone: (562) 921-5521 Fax: (562) 921-6101

If to City: Phone: Fax: 12.4 Amendments This Agreement may not be modified except by written amendment executed by WRD and the City. 12.5 Integration This Agreement represents the entire understanding of WRD and the City as to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, communications and representations, whether written or oral. The Parties represent and warrant that they are not entering into this Agreement based upon any facts or representations that are not expressly set forth in this Agreement. 12.6 Construction This Agreement shall be construed as the product of a joint effort by the Parties and any rule requiring that agreements or provisions thereof be construed against the drafter shall not apply. 12.7 Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.


12.8 Attorneys’ Fees In the event of a dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees. 12.9 Successors and Assigns This Agreement shall inure to the benefit the Parties' respective successors and assigns. 12.10 Authority The persons executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they are authorized to do so by the Party for whom they are signing. WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Signature Signature Print Name Print Name President, Board of Directors Secretary, Board of Directors Title Title CITY OF COMMERCE Signature Signature Print Name Print Name Title Title


Approved As To Form WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, RUBALCAVA & MACCUISH, LLP Attorneys for the Water Replenishment District of Southern California CITY OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

436695.4

EXHIBIT A

1 436695.4

QUITCLAIM DEED, QUITCLAIM BILL OF SALE AND

QUITCLAIM ASSIGNMENT

This Quitclaim Deed, Quitclaim Bill of Sale and Quitclaim Assignment (this “Quitclaim”) is made this ____ day of ________________, 200__, by and between the WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (“WRD”) and The CITY OF COMMERCE (“CITY”), with reference to the following facts: A. The City is the owner of that certain real property commonly known as 3317 Garfield Avenue, Commerce, California (the “Real Property”). B. The City and WRD entered into that certain Agreement dated as of __________, (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which WRD expended Safe and Clean Water Grant Program funds directly towards the construction of Central Basin improvements on the Real Property, including a water treatment system on a groundwater well located at the Real Property (“Improvements”). C. In connection with said construction and procurement, WRD may have obtained certain intangible property, including but not limited to (i) all warranties, contract rights and guaranties pertaining to the Real Property including, but not limited to, all warranties from contractors, architects, engineers and material and labor suppliers (whether written or implied); (ii) all licenses, certifications, authorizations, approvals, rights, privileges, entitlements, permits, zoning, subdivision, development, building or use (e.g., certificates of occupancy), applications, filings, agreements or approvals issued or granted by any governmental or quasi-governmental authority and related to the operation, ownership, leasing, subdivision, development, use and/or maintenance of the Real Property and Improvements; (iii) any and all other contracts related to the Real Property and Improvements and/or the operation, maintenance and repair thereof; (iv) any other intangible property relating to the ownership, use, occupancy or operation of the Real Property and Improvements (collectively, the “Intangible Property”). D. WRD desires to confirm the City’s ownership of, and responsibility for, the Real Property, the Improvements and the Intangible Property by quitclaiming to the City all of WRD’s right, title and interest in and to the Real Property, the Improvements and the Intangible Property, excepting only City’s Grant of a License by to WRD under Article 4 of the Agreement, and the City desires to accept said quitclaim.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, WRD and The City agree as follows:

1. Quitclaim. WRD hereby: (a) remises, releases and forever quitclaims to the City all of WRD’s right, title and interest in and to the Real Property; (b) WRD hereby quitclaims, sells, transfers and delivers to the City all of WRD’s right, title and interest in and to the Improvements; and (c) quitclaims, transfers, assigns and delivers to the City all of WRD’s right, title and interest in and to the Intangible Property

2 436695.4

2. No Representations, Warranties or Covenants. This Quitclaim is given by WRD to the City without express or implied representation, warranty or covenant of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether pursuant to the California Civil Code, the California Uniform Commercial Code or otherwise. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, WRD EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS AND NEGATES: (A) ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY; (B) ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE; AND (C) ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY OF CONFORMITY TO MODELS OR MATERIALS. 3. Acceptance. The City hereby accepts this Quitclaim on the terms and conditions stated herein. 4. Governing Law. This Quitclaim is made and entered into in the State of California and shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California without resort to choice of law principles.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Quitclaim has been executed as of the date first above written. WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA By: _________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Its: __________________________________ CITY OF COMMERCE By: _________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Its: __________________________________

AGENDA ITEM NO. X




SUBJECT: PERMISSION LETTER FOR NEIGHBOR’S WALL ORDUNA DESALTER PROPERTY

The Water Replenishment District owns and maintains the single family lot with the potable water well located at 4635 Sepulveda Blvd. in the City of Torrance. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Tran own and live on the property at 4637 in Sepulveda Blvd. next to the WRD’s property. The two properties were separated by a short block wall. According to Mr. Joseph Tran, they retained a contractor to extend the block wall vertically and have more privacy. Mr. Tran has mentioned that he was not aware that a construction permit was required by the City of Torrance and thus proceeded with the extension of the block wall without any permit. The City of Torrance has informed Mr. Tran that he must obtain the consent of the adjacent property owners. Therefore, it is recommended that the Committee authorize staff to issue a letter of consent to Mr. Tran for the extension of his wall, provided that Mr. Tran will secure all other permit conditions and that the WRD will not be responsible for any cost or liability associated with the extension of the block wall. The attached letter was reviewed by WRD counsel. FISCAL IMPACT:

None.


That the Board authorize staff to issue a letter of consent to Mr. Tran.

COMMITTEE RECOMME NDATION:

The Water Resource Committee reviewed this item on November 13, 2003 and concurred with the staff recommendation.

Draft November 19, 2003 Joseph Tran 4637 W. Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance, CA 90505 Re: Approval of the block wall constructed adjacent to the WRD property located at

4635 Sepulveda Blvd., in the City of Torrance. Dear Mr. Tran: In your letter of October 8, 2003 you wrote to WRD, requesting our consent for the vertical extension of the block wall along your property line in the city of Torrance shared with the WRD’s property at 4635 Sepulveda Blvd. Please be advised that your request was submitted to the WRD Board of Directors on November 19, 2003,.and that the Board had no objection to your request subject to 1-Your full compliance with the city of Torrance’s permit requirements.. 2-There is no cost to WRD for your extension of this wall. 3-You assume all liabilities for the extension of this wall and that WRD is not responsible for any defects which may arise from the improper design or construction of this wall. 4-This wall will not limit the WRD from the use of its property at 4635 Sepulveda Blvd. Sincerely, Kavous Emami, Assistant General Manager

Solicitation for Cooperative Research Page 1 of 2 Board Meeting, November5, 2003

AGENDA ITEM NO. XI




SUBJECT: SALT MANAGEMENT GUIDE RESEARCH PROJECT

The Central Basin and West Basin Municipal Water Districts are requesting the WRD’s participation as a collaborating utility for an upcoming research project entitled Salt Management Guide. The goal of the project is to provide guidance to the landscape manager on what type of salt management activities to implement when using recycled water for irrigation and when to implement them. The Guide will include a matrix system of landscape parameters to match individual site conditions that will help indicate when salt management activities are necessary. An educational brochure that discusses salinity in recycled water will also be published. The Municipals are requesting conceptual support and/or financial support from the WRD. A copy of the letter of request for the project is attached. The Inter-Agency Committee reviewed this item on September 25, 2003. Director Acosta recommended that the District provide conceptual support on the project and have the Water Resources Committee review this item to determine if financial support is necessary. Director Murray recommended that the District provide conceptual and financial support and that the Water Resources Committee determine the extent of the District’s participation. The Water Resources Committee reviewed this item on October 14, 2003. The Committee recommended financial participation in the requested amount of $3,000. The Board of Directors reviewed this item on November 5, 2003. Director Acosta expressed her concerns that the approach and objective of this research project were not well understood to justify financial support by the WRD. The Board of Directors requested that staff obtain more information and gain a better understanding on the project and report back to the Board at the next meeting. Staff contacted Mr. Richard Nagel of the CBMWD for additional information on the project. He has provided WRD with the attached project summary and project proposal

Solicitation for Cooperative Research Page 2 of 2 Board Meeting, November5, 2003

submitted to the WaterReuse Foundation. Results from this research project will help the CBMWD be able to respond to concerns raised by potential customers, especially concerns about the salt levels in recycled water for landscape irrigation. According to Mr. Nagel, the project’s budget is $100,000, funded primarily by the WaterReuse Foundation ($50,000) and the Department of Water Resources ($20,000). The CBMWD also coordinated with several other utilities for support to the project. Principal investigators for this project are Cal Poly Pomona and UC Davis. The project is anticipated to begin in January 2004 and will last for approximately one year.

FISCAL IMPACT: $3,000, there are no funds allocated for this item in the FY03-04 budget.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For discussion. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

The Water Resources Committee recommends that the Board approve WRD’s participation as a collaborating utility on the research project entitled Salt Management Guide and contribute $3,000 toward the effort.

Safe Drinking Water Program Update Page 1 of 2 Board of Directors, November 19, 2003

AGENDA ITEM NO. XIIDATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2003



SUBJECT: SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM UPDATE

The District is currently managing several projects under the District’s Safe Drinking Water Program (SDWP), which provides wellhead treatment facilities to remove contaminants and improve water quality. The following is an update of activities. There are four projects in the design and/or construction phase.

1) The Board authorized awarding the contract for construction of a granular activated carbon system for the Norwalk Well 8 project to Pacific Hydrotech Corporation on April 2, 2003. A Notice of Award was mailed on April 3, 2003; however, the City of Norwalk has requested that the District delay construction until well modifications are complete at the affected well. In addition, DHS has required the City to implement additional monitoring parameters prior to construction of a wellhead treatment system. Once complete, Pacific Hydrotech can begin construction of the treatment system.

2) Don Howard Engineers has completed the designs and specifications for the

Southern California Water Company Converse well. At this time, the Southern California Water Company has requested consideration to use the treatment vessels from the Hoffman project at the Converse well location. District counsel has revised a draft agreement between WRD and the Southern California Water Company for review.

3) Don Howard Engineers has completed 100% of the designs and specifications

for the City of Commerce Well 4L (operated by Cal Water Service). The City of Commerce has acquired the additional property needed to accommodate the new system and is currently working on the required permits for the project. The 30-day environmental public review period ended August 29, 2003 with no comments received. The negative declaration is ready for adoption.

Safe Drinking Water Program Update Page 2 of 2 Board of Directors, November 19, 2003

4) An amendment to the agreement with the Southern California Water Company (SCWC) was executed on September 17, 2003 to incorporate a reimbursement program for the Imperial Wells 1, 2, & 3 project. SCWC will be the lead agency, procuring all contracts in accordance with WRD’s current contract policy. WRD will make progress payments upon submittal of invoices by SCWC for an amount not to exceed $346,500.

The District is currently evaluating new candidates for the Safe Drinking Water Program. Several purveyors have made inquiries. The well data, type of contaminates and affected duration of their wells will be used to prioritize the candidate list. There are currently eleven (11) WRD wellhead treatment facilities in operation. The cities of Huntington Park and Norwalk each have two facilities online. The other facilities are located in the cities of Bell Gardens, Commerce, Signal Hill, South Gate, Pico Rivera, Bell, and Paramount. The arsenic removal pilot system in SCWC’s Century Well in the City of Paramount continues to provide important information for groundwater producers within and outside the District. SCWC has completed the first phase pilot testing and determined that Granular Ferric Hydroxide (GFH) worked best out of the four tested media. WRD will continue to monitor and analyze the data received from these new treatment technologies. FISCAL IMPACT:

These projects total $2.8 million and were included in the FY 01-02 Budget under the Safe Drinking Water Program.


For information.

Bond Counsel Selection Page 1 of 1 Board of Directors, November 19, 2003

AGENDA ITEM NO. XIII DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2003



SUBJECT: SELECTION OF BOND COUNSEL

At the October 15, 2003 Board Meeting, the District’s Financial Advisors, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates made a recommendation that the Board authorize a contract for bond counsel services with Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. The Board voted to postpone selection of bond counsel until the Ad Hoc Bond Counsel Committee had time to review the candidates and to provide its recommendation to the Board. The Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Director Ryan and Director Goldsworthy interviewed the top three candidates that were recommended by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates which were: Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott, LLP Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP After a complete and thorough interview process, the Ad Hoc Committee makes the recommendation as listed below. FISCAL IMPACT:

$75,000


Concurs with Ad Hoc Bond Counsel Committee recommendation.


The Ad Hoc Bond Counsel Committee recommends that the Board authorize a contract for bond counsel services with Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

PARS Resolution 03-691 Page 1 of 1 Board of Directors, November 19, 2003

AGENDA ITEM NO. XIVDATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2003



SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-691 – A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PARS) TRUST AND APPOINTING A PLAN ADMINISTRATOR

The Board of Directors approved participation in the Public Agency Retirement System (PARS) at its meeting on August 6, 2003. Attached is a resolution necessary to implement the program. District Counsel will provide a report. FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown at this time.


That the Board Adopt Resolution No. 03-691.


A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE

PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PARS) TRUST AND APPOINTING A PLAN ADMINISTRATOR

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved at its meeting on August 6, 2003 the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (“District”) joining the Public Agency Retirement System (PARS);

WHEREAS, the form of the agreements and plan documents necessary for the District to participate in PARS have been resolved, and the District must now appoint a person as the District’s Plan Administrator and formally adopt the PARS Trust, which will make available the Retirement Enhancement Plan

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California that

1. The Board of Directors of the District hereby adopts the PARS Trust, including the PARS Retirement Enhancement Plan, as part of the District Retirement Program, effective as of November 19, 2003; and

2. The Board of Directors of the District hereby appoints the POSITION OR

TITLE , of the District or his/her/their successor(s) as the District’s Plan Administrator for the Public Agency Retirement System, which Administrator is hereby authorized to execute the PARS legal and administrative service documents on behalf of the District and to implement the PARS supplemental retirement plan.

WHEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Water Replenishment District of

Southern California has adopted this Resolution as of the ___th day of _______________, 2003.

_________________________________ Willard H. Murray, President

ATTEST:

_________________________________ Robert Goldsworthy, Secretary

Documents

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WATER ... Packages + Agend… · (NAACP) Awards Banquet to be held October 17, 2003. AYES: Directors Acosta, Goldsworthy, Murray, Robles,