Carlsbad Desalination Project Report o October 2012 Public Workshops - Oct. 25, 2012

3,363 views

Published on

Presentation given at the San Diego County Water Authority's Water Planning Meeting on Oct. 25, 2012. To view agenda visit www.sdcwa.org/monthly-board-meeting-20

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,363
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,268
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Carlsbad Desalination Project Report o October 2012 Public Workshops - Oct. 25, 2012

  1. 1. Carlsbad Desalination ProjectReport on October 2012 Public Workshops San Diego County Water Authority Water Planning Committee 1 October 25, 2012 1
  2. 2.  Board approved Term Sheet with Poseidon July 2010  Set parameters for major terms and conditions  WPA is consistent with the July 2010 Term Sheet 28 Months since approval of Term Sheet Over 30 public meetings regarding the Water Purchase Agreement and the Project  Public input provided throughout the process Detailed information on project costs and rate impacts presented in October 2011  Presented again in April, June, July, August and October  Consistently estimated in the $5-$7 per month residential user 2
  3. 3.  Conducted detailed Board workshops and Committee Meetings on WPA Terms and conditions  August 9th, September 20th, September 27th  Continued in-depth discussion October 25th  Received public comment and input at all meetings In-depth Board Memos and presentations available to the public  WPA terms and conditions  Project costs and estimated rate impacts Two open houses & evening meetings in the community  Substantial turnout from the public 3
  4. 4. October 2, 2012 San Diego County Water Authority, Kearny Mesa Comments/Attendees Support Oppose Neutral Questions ~135 30 22 7 1 4
  5. 5. October 10, 2012 City of Carlsbad, Faraday Center Comments/Attendees Support Oppose Neutral Questions ~160 35 28 5 2 5
  6. 6.  In support:  Diversifies water supply portfolio  Well vetted  Provides jobs  Supports tourism and external perception of SD  Good for the regional economy In Opposition:  Costly energy / energy intensive  Conservation and IPR should be done first  Environmental impacts 6
  7. 7.  Questions asked during the course of both public meetings  Insufficient time to respond during meetings  Staff directed to note and respond to Committee Categorizing Questions from Public  WPA terms and conditions  Water supply reliability and conservation  Cost questions including cost of energy  Environmental related questions 7
  8. 8.  Recurring Comments from the public  Extensive time to implement the project  Role of water supply and the project in economic growth and jobs  Prioritization of local water supply development (loading order)  Conservation, Recycling, Indirect Potable Reuse and Desalination last Detailed responses to questions and comments in October 17, 2012 Memo  Will address cost and energy related questions and comments in item 1-B presentation 8
  9. 9. What is the optimal water supply portfolio? Many years in development and refinement Meets our region’s water supply needs Done in close cooperation with member agencies Balances reliability with rate payer affordability Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)  State law – UWMP Act – updated every 5 years  Requires a diverse mix of resources, including:  Conservation  Recycling  Imported water  Local supply development 9
  10. 10. What is the optimal water supply portfolio? (continued) Regional Water Facilities Master Plan  Multi-year study concluded in 2004  Identified opportunities & facilities to meet needs through 2030  Seawater Desalination -- next increment of supply, with:  Continued aggressive conservation  Water recycling & brackish groundwater project development by member agencies  Articulated in UWMPs of 2000, 2005, 2010  CEQA Certified in 2004 Programmatic Environmental Impact Report 10
  11. 11. Why isn’t the Water Authority doing more for conservation? Conservation is a core strategy of our supply reliability for more than two decades 800,000 AF conserved since 1991  Water efficient devices  500,000+ toilets, 600,000+ low-flow showerheads  Public outreach programs and campaigns  100,000+ high-efficiency clothes washer rebates  WaterSmart Target Program  2012: 11% (70,000 AF) of region’s water use is offset 11
  12. 12. …Water Authority doing more for conservation? (continued) A leader in legislative advocacy for water conservation  Founding member California Urban Water Conservation Council  Sponsor: SB1224 - Low flush, adopted in Energy Policy Act of 1992  Support: AB1561 & AB2572 – high efficiency washers & water meters  Support: AB2717 & AB1881 – outdoor landscape water use efficiency  Support: SBX7-7 “20 by 2020” 20% reduction of water use by 2020 Three Conservation Summits hosted by Water Authority Blueprint for Water Conservation - 2007  Transition to landscape water conservation through behavioral changes Board’s Water Use Efficiency Policy Principles - April 2012 12
  13. 13. The Carlsbad Desalination plant will degrade the existing environmentat Agua Hedionda Lagoon and is environmentally impactive. Long term stewardship of the lagoon  Provided by Encina Power Plant for last 60 years  Nurtures white sea bass restoration and other aquaculture activities  Assured to continue with the Carlsbad Desalination plant  Poseidon required to continue routine dredging of channel and outer lagoon (which would naturally close)  Degradation would occur absent dredging and inflow of fresh ocean water  Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation is a consistent supporter of the project 13
  14. 14. How do we know the Carlsbad Desalination plant is environmentallyresponsible desalination? The Institutions in California responsible for making that determination said it is.  City of Carlsbad lead agency for CEQA  California State Lands Commission  California Coastal Commission  State Water Resources Control Board Decisions of those institutions upheld in California Superior Court and California Appellate Court  14 individual legal challenges 14
  15. 15. The California Coastal Commission is going to make the City [of SanDiego] do IPR or upgrade Point Loma to secondary, and the WaterAuthority needs to understand this. Roles of California SWRCB and USEPA  Charged by US Clean Water Act to grant waivers and define their conditions Role of City of San Diego  Holder of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit  Seeks waiver and agrees to its terms along with 12 Metro System agencies Role of Coastal Commission  Ensures consistency between any potential waiver granted by RWQCB (thru SWRCB) and the Coastal Zone Management Act 15
  16. 16.  1977 amendment to Clean Water Act allowed modification to secondary treatment requirements for ocean dischargers (Section 301 H) Dischargers had until July 1, 1988 to apply for waiver City applied for a waiver in 1979 and 1981 and was denied  Given until March 1987 to reapply for reconsideration  City Council decided to forgo waiver in February 1987 EPA sued the City for non-compliance July 1, 1988  Later joined by Sierra Club 16
  17. 17.  City and EPA considered a consent decree to phase in secondary at Point Loma  7 water reclamation plants to beneficially reuse 70,000 AF  Upgrade Point Loma to Secondary  $2.5 Billion In 1994 Federal court rejected consent decree and approved revised City proposal “Consumer Alternative”  2 recycled water plants -45 MGD of tertiary treatment capacity 1994 Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA) allowed City to apply for waiver under certain conditions 17
  18. 18.  OPRA Conditions  45 MGD of tertiary treatment capacity  Meeting specific water quality standards for Point Loma deep ocean discharge North City Water Reclamation Plant completed 1997 (30 mgd) South Bay Plant completed 2002 (15 mgd) Waivers approved in 1995, 2002, 2010  Increasing opposition to continued waivers from local environmental groups and Coastal Commission  City agreed to study increasing the beneficial use of recycled water including IPR  Completed 2 Studies since 2005  Open demonstration project summer 2011 18
  19. 19. IPR & DPR are cheaper than desalination and should be donebefore any desalination project Local Supplies are critical to reliability and diversification  2010 UWMP relies on additional 100,000 AF of new local supplies San Diego Region is limited in local supply options  Lack of large groundwater basins and industrial water users IPR maximizes recycled water use and recycled treatment capacity  Not subject to seasonal variations in demand Seawater Desalination maximizes proximity to Pacific Ocean and regional conveyance  Both are part of diversification  Both are cost competitive with other local supply options 19
  20. 20. $2,041 Carlsbad (Poseidon) $2,290 Mission Basin Narrows $1,717 $1,475 Otay River $2,086 $1,975 City of SD RWS* 2,375** $1,628North San Diego County Regional Reuse $1,730 $1,900 Camp Pendleton Desalination $2,340 (100 mgd) (50 mgd) 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 $/AF Brackish Groundwater Recycled / IPR Seawater Desalination *Cost range includes wastewater related costs that ** Incentive funding reduced at 2011 value of $275. RWS may reduce the unit cost by up to $600/AF. assumes deduction for incentives on 20 year NPV basis. 20
  21. 21. Point Loma Point Loma Point Loma Secondary Secondary Advanced Costs Only w IPR Primary w IPR (NO IPR) Alternatives AlternativesIndirect Capital $1.9 – 2.2 $0 $1.9 – 2.2 BillionPotable Billion Reuse Annual $100-110 $100-110 (IPR) Operations $0 Million Million $1.16 $0 .727 Billion Capital ($123 Million – wet $0.263 Billion Point Billion weather demand) Loma Annual $19 Million $37 Million $5.9 Million Operations ($9 Million other) Source: Draft Recycled Water Study: IPR costs from Tables 8-3,8-4,8-6, 8-7 , 8-9, 8-10 Point Loma Costs Appendix H, Pages B-6, B-7 21
  22. 22. “Water Authority’s reluctance to acknowledge theimminence of this project, (IPR) it will happen on anaccelerated schedule” –Letter from CERF to RMWD Project is not included in City of San Diegos 2010 UWMP City PUD is working with CDPH on regulations for surface water augmentation with advanced treated recycled water  Current planning based on draft groundwater recharge regulations and anticipated surface water augmentation regulations  DPH can issue guidelines on case by case basis in advance of final regulations 22
  23. 23.  Project is in the early planning stages  Subsequent activities include environmental compliance EIR, permitting, etc.  City & Metro agencies decision on Clean Water Act compliance strategy RWS implementation plan assumes project is built in phases  Study includes five integrated reuse alternatives  “All proposed plants have startup dates between 2020 and 2035” (RWS, Table 7.2 Footnote) 23
  24. 24. IPR will decrease City of San Diego water purchases, reduce demandand significantly impact the remaining agencies 300 250 17 34 Thousand Acre-Feet 200 93 150 100 202 221 221 216 166 167 50 0 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Existing and Projected City of San Diego Demand on SDCWA (Assume 2010 UWMP Projected Local Supplies) Projected IPR Use (City of San Diego 2012 Recycled Water Study) 24
  25. 25. 1000 904 MWD Imported Supplies 900 851 790 Otay WD Proposed Rosarito 800 211 722 Desalination Project 240 654 City of SD RWS (IPR)Thousand Acre-feet 700 223 20 20 93 600 231 20 34 Proposed Carlsbad Desalination 56 17 56 500 56 Project 358 56 126 124 Projected Local Supplies 400 122 118 (Verifiable) 97 118 300 72 Additional Conservation (20% 47 109 Reduction by 2020) 200 CR Transfers (QSA Supplies) 270 280 280 280 100 180 Baseline Demands (Includes 56 0 TAF of Existing Conservation) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 25
  26. 26. Regional Supply Mix w/ Potential City of SD Indirect Potable Reuse and Otay WD Desalination (Singe Dry Year) 1000 957 901 MWD Imported Supplies 900 837 800 765 297 Otay WD Proposed Rosarito Desalination Project 694 322 City of SD RWS (IPR)Thousand Acre-feet 700 302 20 600 305 20 93 Proposed Carlsbad Desalination 20 34 17 56 Project 500 430 56 56 56 93 Projected Local Supplies 92 400 90 (Verifiable) 87 97 118 300 72 Additional Conservation (20% 47 Reduction by 2020) 200 77 CR Transfers (QSA Supplies) 270 280 280 280 100 180 Baseline Demands (Includes 56 0 TAF of Existing Conservation) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 26
  27. 27. 1000 MWD Imported Supplies 880 900 828 768 Otay WD Proposed Rosarito 800 163 702 Desalination Project 193 20 City of SD RWS (IPR)Thousand Acre-feet 700 635 176 20 93 600 185 34 20 48 17 48 Proposed Carlsbad Desalination 48 500 Project 307 48 158 156 Projected Local Supplies 155 400 152 (Verifiable) 97 118 300 72 Additional Conservation (20% 47 141 Reduction by 2020) 200 CR Transfers (QSA Supplies) 270 280 280 280 100 180 Baseline Demands (Includes 56 0 TAF of Existing Conservation) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 27
  28. 28. The $5-$7 per month is an average cost and most largeragencies will pay more $5-$7/month is based on high cost estimate, 2013 lower sales forecast than projected in 2016 and current differential with MWD rates Sampled rate impacts from representative cross section of agencies  Estimates based on financial information provided for each member agency by Water Authority  Impacts varied by size of demand and agencys amount of local supplies  Composite average residential bill is $75.00 per month Up to 20,000 AFY 20, 000- 50,000 AFY $6.84/month $6.00/month $4.36/month $4.56/month $6.30/month $6.50/month 28
  29. 29. 29

×