water

1. A new water treatment plant would be built in the vicinity of the Loch or Scotts
Valley to serve participating water districts primarily by gravity, possibly
generating hydroelectricity in the process.
Benefits: [E = Effectiveness, I = Environmental Impact, P = Practicability]
EP Drought-proofs all of mid-County
EP Fills a vast water bank ~5x bigger than the Loch, and ~30x bigger than SqCWD’s
1500 AF target.
EP Provides massive flexibility of an inter-agency raw water intertie.
EP Allows water to be transferred without first having to treat it to full potable standard.
P Allows water treatment facilities to be located in any district along the pipeline.
EP Fills aquifers extremely quickly, heads off ocean saline incursion into the Purisima
Aquifer.
E Gives good yield even in most dry years, because winter storm water usually is still
abundant.
E Uses very little pumping energy since all pipeline ports are roughly level (at ~500’
elevation).
EIP Saves energy: water treated at the pipeline’s elevation would go downhill to reach
most users.
EIP Produces hydroelectricity in pipeline down to users, so net energy use rivals that of
conservation.
EI Apportions diversions among a number of streams to increase yields and lessen
impacts.
EIP Assertively supports fish habitat: can augment almost every mid-County stream
exactly when
needed, at effective (high) elevations, and at considerable volumes.
EIP Increases fish populations: cool water seeps from recharged aquifers into habitat
base flows.
IP Water rights may be granted quickly because of considerable fish habitat benefits.
EP Can be used independently or in conjunction with a Lochquifer-type project for larger
capacity.
P Might take advantage of SqCWD’s 5,000 AFY reserve water right on Soquel Creek,
and/or
P Might take advantage of County’s 17,000 AFY reserve water right on Zayante
Creek.
P Avoids CalTrans approval delays by crossing under Highway 17 with Glen Canyon
Road.
P ~80-year operating life
Summary: The Cross-County Pipeline alternative is similar in concept to the Lochquifer
Alternative (See Sec. 13), but with several additional features. Both Alternatives divert
water from streams during rainy months of each year, pre-treat it, and store it in Loch
Lomond. Both Alternatives distribute Loch Lomond water throughout the year to the
participating water agencies which depend upon wells, so as to greatly reduce well use
and thus allow rainfall to quickly recharge the aquifers—which then will become vast
water banks for use during droughts, and will provide enhanced cool base flows for fish
habitat. Both Alternatives include a new conventional water treatment plant with 8
million gallons per day capacity, to be located in the Loch or Scotts Valley areas,
perhaps in a corner of existing unused quarry land. Both Alternatives generate

2. hydroelectricity from the pipeline which gravity-feeds potable water to users far below
the water treatment plant.
Additional capabilities of the Cross-County pipeline include:
1. P the ability to divert water from virtually every stream in mid-County. One object
of this capability would be to reduce the total impact of diversion by making an
inconsequential diversion from each of many streams rather than problematic
diversions from just a few streams. Conventional wisdom says that it is better to
divert water at lower elevations so the fish have use of the water along the length of
the stream. However, diversions under the Cross-County Pipeline Alternative would
be almost entirely in the rainy season on days when water for fish is over-abundant;
furthermore, diverting at higher elevations most likely will yield better water quality for
humans and require less-intensive treatment.
2. P the ability to exchange raw water between agencies at any time. Water would
no longer have to be treated to a potable standard before it can be transferred.
When Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant is at or near full capacity and thus is
unable to transfer much water—which is the case throughout much of the year--the
Cross-County Pipeline could accomplish the transfer.
3. I the ability to augment, or provide extra water to, virtually every stream in mid-
County, to target specific fish habitats when and where the extra water is needed
most to grow fish populations, in the judgment of specialists in fisheries matters. The
map below shows examples of several small-diameter spurs leading uphill from the
main pipeline to stream-augmentation sites. (1 cfs augmentation for two dry months
per year equals 120 AFY, only about 2% of the total amount diverted annually by the
Cross-County Pipeline Alternative.)
4. I the flexibility of the augmentation infrastructure to facilitate original research in
which the parameters could be controlled. This augmentation would be a significant
move to intelligently and assertively help fish, as opposed to merely trying not to hurt
them so badly.
The pipeline, not including spurs, runs some 7.3 miles “as the crow flies” and some 12 to
17 miles as shown on the map below, which was created by this author (undoubtedly
pipeline layout professionals could do a better job). The parts of the pipeline which dip
below 500-foot elevation are of no consequence to energy consumption because no
inlets or outlets are located there. P The route chosen here follows existing roadways, to
show that a continuous connection is at least possible; the optimal route may instead
follow lot lines, etc.

3. Map
of
the
Cross-­‐County
Pipeline
Option
number
1,
some
16
miles
of
main,
plus
a
few
miles
of
small-­‐diameter
spurs
for
stream
augmentation.
–J.Paul
Lower-elevation routing options
exist to the south, from Highway 17
to Soquel Creek. They may incur
lower capital cost because of
smoother terrain at the lower
elevations. The main point in
saving pumping energy is: all
points where water enters or exits
should be at similar elevations.
A potable-water pipeline (not
shown) would extend from the
proposed water treatment plant in
the Scotts Valley or Loch areas,
downhill to a roughly 400 square-foot
plot where hydroelectricity
would be generated at 200’ to 320’
elevation, near an (existing, but
TBD) electrical substation.
Inflows
to
Loch
Lomond
from
Newell
Creek
as
read
from
graph:
Fig.
5-­‐2,
Water
Supply
Alternatives
Study
Camp
Dresser
&
McKee,
Inc.,
1994
Year
kmgy
AFY
%
of
8400
AF
Capacity
1970
2.70
8286
99
1971
0.50
1,535
18
1972
0.35
1,074
13
1973
3.20
9,821
117
1974
2.10
6,445
77
1975
1.40
4,297
51
1976
0.15
460
5
1977
0.20
614
7

4. Possible sites could be near
GHWTP or near SqCWD. SqCWD
might be an excellent customer for
the low-cost energy to run its well
pumps, and would probably offer a
much better deal than if the
electricity were simply sold to
PG&E. See Sec. 24 (Cowell RR
Pipeline) for repurposing the
southern section of the Felton-to-
GHWTP pipeline to become part of
a potable water intertie between
Scotts Valley WD and GHWTP.
Fish and humans might benefit if a
Ranney collector or the like were to
be put into the Loch. Water drawn
from a great depth would be cold,
which fish love, and with thermal
pipe insulation, might be just the
ticket for stream augmentations.
Deep water also is less likely to
contain active biomatter.
Importantly, by its nature a Ranney
collector uses the Loch bed to filter
the water before the water even
reaches the Ranney collector, so
water quality is likely to be much
better. Lastly, even after the Loch
finally silts up in its old age, a
Ranney collector may still enable
the Loch to function as a reservoir.
Stream augmentation of Carbonera
and Branciforte Creeks may be
relatively pointless from a fisheries
standpoint unless environmental
modifications are made to a
drainage channel which they share
for roughly their last mile
1978
3.55
10,895
130
1979
1.20
3,683
44
1980
2.40
7,366
88
1981
0.80
2,455
29
1982
4.20
12,890
153
1983
7.15
21,943
261
1984
0.70
2,148
26
1985
0.45
1,381
16
1986
4.50
13,811
164
1987
0.45
1,381
16
1988
0.25
767
9
1989
0.40
1,228
15
1990
0.20
614
7
1991
0.80
2,455
29
1992
1.85
5,678
68
Max
7.15
21,943
261
in
1983
Mean
1.72
5,271
63
Median
0.80
2,455
29
in
‘81&'91
Min
0.15
460
5
in
1976
Year
kmgy
AFY
%
of
8400
Year
AF
Capacity
From
Conjunctive
Use…-­‐Kennedy/Jenks
2011
Appendix
Table
1:
USGS:
TOTAL
TOTAL
Bear
(est.)
Newell
Zayante
Bean
Carbonera
B'forte(est.)
So-­‐quel
Bear...
Carbon.
Bear...
Soquel
6000
11,500
8000
8000
4000
6000
31,000
37,500
74,500
A
6,000
AFY
fill
of
the
Loch
takes
this
%
of
stream
flow:
19.4
16.0
8.1
The
two
statements
re
Newell
disagree
by
a
ratio
of
over
2:1.
"Loch
Lomond
inflows
are
not
measured.
In
the
operational
model,
inflows
were
estimated
based
on
correlation
with
Zayante
Creek."-­‐ibid.,
p.5-­‐3
(p.
44
of
235)

5. before flowing into the San Lorenzo River. The entirely concrete channel probably does
not now support anadromous species, and would need to be converted into suitable
habitat. Until it becomes suitable habitat, larger-than usual winter diversions possibly
may be authorized.To sum up, the Cross-County pipeline is a direct solution to the
reality that most of mid-County’s water sources are to the northwest, whereas the most
dire need is to the southeast.
Cost estimates:
M$ Comment (Figures represent costs for minimum configuration plus
hydroelectric option)
35 Conventional 8 mgd water treatment plant, including land acquisition
15 De-turbidifying diversion devices, installed: 3 @ $5M each
17 Raw water pipeline and pumpstations, 15 miles @ $1.1M/mile
5 Potable water pipeline, 4 miles @ $1.1M/mile
5 Hydroelectric facility (small turbine/generator)
15 Design and permitting
92 TOTAL construction expense
29 Bond interest* (30-year fixed rate at 3.125% on all but the first $35M = $57M x
50%)
121 Sum of capitalization
1.51 Amortized over 80-year operating life: per annum capitalization cost
1.00 Operation and maintenance, per annum (includes credit earned for
hydroelectricity)
2.51 Total per annum cost
$418 Cost per acre-foot in $, not M$, producing 6,000 AFY -includes bond
interest*
$358 -not including bond
interest*
*Note: competing projects may or may not include bond interest in their cost estimates.
Further study:
• What treatment, if any, would Loch water need in order to be used for stream
augmentation?
• What is the best pipeline route so as to minimize the sum of capital, finance and
operating costs?
• Would it be better to locate the Soquel end of the pipeline at a slightly lower
elevation, on the theory that most water would be travelling from northwest to
southeast?
• Is it better to locate treatment facilities in the Loch area, Scotts Valley, Soquel or
…?
• At what cost level would habitat restoration of the Carbonera/Branciforte Creek
concrete drainage channel be effective for fish habitat purposes?
• If said concrete channel is not restored to become fish habitat, how large could
the diversions from Carbonera and Branciforte Creeks at 500’ elevation be?
• What would fisheries regulators have to say about the plan?
• Where is the optimal hydroelectricity generation site?
• Who would like to use the low-cost electricity and how much would they be
willing to pay?

6. • What would it take to transport the electricity from its site of generation to its site
of use—or would it be better to generate it at the site of use?
• Should a Ranney collector be put into the Loch?