Attachment 1
|
Community Advisory Committee Comments –
Revised 5/29/07 MPWMD Long-Term
Water Supply Project/Desalination in April 23, 2007 |
|
|
Merits |
Drawbacks |
|
Paul Bruno 1. Technically feasible for desalination project, but not necessarily wells. 2. Project size can be scaled. 3. Does not rely upon rainfall. Manuel Fierro 1. Combined
with ASR and RUWAP could comply with SWRCB Order 95-10 and get water to 2. Enough water to comply with SWRCB Order 95-10 but not for growth. 3. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) not involved. 4. Would be a public/private entity. Janet Brennan 1. Local control over project design and capacity. 2. Possibility of voter approval for the project. 3. Distribution costs would appear to be lower than for North coast desalination projects. 4. There are environmental benefits in terms of the HDD wells. Dewey Baird 1. Theoretically
because water is potable, it has a potential for helping with SWRCB Order
95-10 and the Tom Rowley 1. Agree with Mr. Bruno about not relying on a water supply. that is dependant upon rainfall. 2. Project is rainfall proof. 3. Coastal Commission is not expert. Sheryl McKenzie 1. Doesn’t depend on rainfall. Greg Pickens 1. Supports comments made by Bruno and Fierro. Roy Thomas 1. Drought proof. 2. Less plumbing needed. 3. Within District boundaries. 4. Expandable. 5. Sites available. 6. Ocean is nearby. Robert Greenwood 1. Supports comments made by Janet Brennan. |
1. Plant sites are theoretical at this time. 2. Potential issues with erosion over time for anything west of Highway 1. 3. Brine disposal by way of wells seems to be less favorable than by way of outfall. 4. Coastal commission prefers a regional desalination facility system versus a series of small plants. 5. Costs need to be updated because they reflect 2002 dollars. 1. Costs extremely high for amount of water produced. 2. Enough water to comply with SWRCB Order 95-10 but not for growth. 3. California American Water (CAW) may not own the desalination plant. 1. High energy demand. 1. CIP costs as compared to the yield (ratio) are negative. 2. The technology is problematic, unproven. 3. Potential problems with permitting. Site belongs to California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1. HDD well technology is questionable. 2. Should
check with Ed Thornton at 3. Cost – building this piecemeal will not work. Result in high cost. 4. Storage vs. surge capacity. This is not addressed in the proposed project, the need for adequate storage during peak demand or when there is low rainfall. No reserve capacity. 1. Not enough water to meet SWRCB Order 95-10, unless combined with other projects. 2. Untested technology. 3. High energy costs. 4. Politicizing of voter approval – growth vs. no growth. 1. Location still in question. No land leased or purchased at this time. 2. Technology feasible but not proven. 3. Radial Collector Well technology might b e suitable for fresh water/river bed collection but questionable for onshore ocean water extraction. 4. HDD is limited with horizontal reach (100-200 ft offshore to start of screen filter) due to estimated pump setting calculations. 5. Possible retreat strategy required due to erosion (entry points/desal plant needing to be moved inland). 6. Potential multiple bring discharge solutions required. MRWPCA plus injector wells (or alternative methods). 7. Size of location may prohibit expansion beyond meeting minimal 95-10 water supply requirements. Number of offshore collection or discharge pipes limited by location. 1. Wells are too expensive and may not work as currently designed. 2. Need small test project to see where mistakes have been made. 3. More planning for storage and blending of the desalinated water needs to be done. 1. Supports comments made by Janet Brennan. |
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2007\2007boardpackets\20070716\InfoItems\18\item18_exh18e_attach1.doc