140 likes | 300 Views
CPUC Recycled Water OIR. August 30, 2011 Gary R. Lynch VP – Water Quality Park Water Company. PWC’s History with Recycled Water. Many months of pre-planning / discussion Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD)
E N D
CPUC Recycled Water OIR August 30, 2011 Gary R. Lynch VP – Water Quality Park Water Company
PWC’s History with Recycled Water • Many months of pre-planning / discussion • Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) • Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) • Metropolitan Water District of Southern Calif. (MWD) • Century Reclamation Project • Coordination meetings began April 1989 • 17 participants • First of at least 10 meetings over the next year
Who Was Involved? • CBMWD • LACSD • MWD • 60 utilities • 30 cities • County unincorporated areas
How It Would Work • CBMWD lead agency • Put up $300,000 for conceptual design and engineering • Coordinate design, construction, operation, responsibility for funding • Confirm users and get letters of intent • Purchase recycled water from LACSD • Coordinate retrofits for users • Coordinate institutional agreements • Funding included ~$20 million from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Title 16 Water Recycling Funding Program
CBMWD Recycled Water System • System subsidized by MWDSC ($/AF) • $10 per parcel annual tax • System has never come close to obtaining the customers initially identified • 2009/10 sales were 4,317 AF versus planned usage of >8,000 AF • Some very large customers have been lost • Two refineries went out of business before they ever used recycled water even though distribution lines were built to the facilities
Are PUC Policy’s Hurting the Use of Recycled Water? • Since 2002, PWCs recycled water sales have dropped from 503 acre feet per year to 260 acre feet • Nurseries, who were the largest users, have lost their leases along Edison rights-of-way • Virtually all nurseries in Central Basin and San Gabriel Valley in Edison rights-of-way are gone • Why has Edison cancelled these leases? • The state economic issues have also eliminated all Caltrans users
Southeast Water Reliability Project • No stakeholder involvement as in the original project – complete lack of transparency by CBMWD • 2000 state audit of CBMWD recommended that the District execute binding agreements with potential customers for at least 50% of expected deliveries before undertaking large capital projects • No realistic identification of users or any written commitments of recycled water users • Primary user, a new power plant in Vernon, probably will never be built
Southeast Water Reliability Project • Serves groundwater utilities in upper part of basin • Paid for by surcharge on MWD purchases by member agencies in other parts of the basin • 70% of the MWD purchases are by IOUs with no benefit to their customers • $17 -19 million SWRP expenditures to date will net approximately 300 AF of recycled water use
Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company • Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) proposed two sub-regional reclamation plants • Hesperia • Apple Valley
Apple Valley Sub-Regional Plant • AVRWC not involved in any way in initial planning process for this project • AVRWC only opportunities to comment when Notice of Preparation and Preliminary Design Report and Initial Study for the Town of Apple Valley was released for public comment (2010) • Second opportunity with Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements and Recycling Requirements (2011) • None of AVRWCs 2010 comments had been addressed by VVWRA in application to Lahontan
Apple Valley Sub-Regional Plant • Existing scalping water already dedicated by groundwater adjudication to downstream beneficiary • City of Barstow • Golden State Water Company • Also to California Department of Fish and Game • Plant design includes “percolation ponds” located in dry lake beds (land that does not percolate) • Inadequately addresses potential water quality impacts on two nearby AVRWC wells
Apple Valley Sub-Regional Plant • Project had only alluded to potential users – parks, schools and a country club golf course • No commitment letters • No cost-benefit analysis • No development of cost of water/distribution system • Project does not identify a purveyor for recycled water • Seems to assume that parks and schools will purchase water directly from VVWRA • Does not consider California service duplication law