ITEM: |
ACTION
ITEMS |
||||
|
|||||
23. |
RECEIVE REPORT ON MPWMD
95-10 DESALINATION PROJECT |
||||
|
|||||
Meeting
Date: |
December 14, 2009 |
Budgeted: |
Yes |
||
|
|||||
From: |
|
Program/ |
|
||
|
General
Manager |
Line Item No.: 1-3-1 |
|||
|
|||||
Prepared
By: |
Andrew
Bell |
Cost Estimate: |
$195,000 in FY 2009-10
Budget |
||
|
|||||
General Counsel Review: N/A |
|||||
Committee Recommendation: N/A |
|||||
CEQA Compliance: N/A |
|||||
SUMMARY: At the January 29, 2009 meeting, the Board
authorized the General Manager to enter into a contract with Martin Feeney,
Consulting Hydrogeologist, to conduct hydrogeologic investigations for a seawater desalination project with intake
facilities located in the southern portion of
Copies of the report have been provided to Board members under separate cover and are available for public review at the District office.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board should receive a presentation by staff and Martin Feeney, followed by public comment. Staff and the consultant will be available to answer questions. Staff recommends that the Board formally receive the November 2009 report by Martin B. Feeney, with assistance from Pueblo Water Resources, Inc., titled “Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Desalination Project Hydrostratigraphic Investigation.”
BACKGROUND: At the January 24, 2008 Board meeting, the Board endorsed Director Brower’s request to direct staff to prepare a report on requirements to update the MPWMD 95-10 Project, a seawater desalination project proposed to be located in Sand City that was most recently studied by MPWMD in 2004. At the April 21, 2008 Board meeting, the Board authorized Phase 1 studies of the project, termed a “constraints analysis,” to be conducted by CDM and JSA. Representatives of these two firms presented their report at the August 18, 2008 Board meeting. At that meeting, the Board directed that the consultants be authorized to address additional policy issues related to the feasibility of the project. The report on the consultants’ findings and conclusions regarding these issues was received by the Board at the October 20, 2008 meeting. At that meeting, the Board directed staff to bring a scope of work, costs, and schedule for the next phase of studies for the project.
CDM and JSA prepared a proposed
scope of work for Phase 2 studies with input by District staff and with
information obtained at a meeting with Mat Fuzie and Ken Gray of the California
Department of Parks and Recreation in
At the November 24, 2008
Administrative Committee meeting, members of the committee did not make a
formal recommendation to the Board, but rather directed that the item be
presented to the full Board for consideration.
The committee members requested that staff describe alternative
approaches to investigation of the project, including proceeding with the
hydrogeologic investigation but not the engineering portion of the project
(detailed project description and cost estimates) until more is known regarding
the potential for obtaining a supply of seawater from coastal wells without
adversely affecting the
At the December 8, 2008 Board meeting, the full Board supported this more focused and limited approach. Following the Board meeting, staff met with Martin Feeney, Consulting Hydrogeologist, to discuss tasks required to complete the only the hydrogeologic investigations. Based on these discussions, Mr. Feeney submitted a proposal for a more limited, step-wise approach. This approach was approved by the Board at their January 29, 2009 meeting at a cost not to exceed $291,800.
The first step of the
investigation was to collect, map, and analyze existing hydrogeologic information. Mr. Feeney presented the results of this
phase to District staff in a July 16, 2009 Technical Memorandum. This document included proposals for the
field program, to consist of a number of soil borings to determine the nature
of the shallow dune sands and whether there is a continuous, low-permeability
layer that would allow the project to avoid impacts to the
Report Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
Findings are presented on pages 8 through 19 of Mr. Feeney’s November 2009 report. Conclusions and recommendations are presented on pages 20 and 21. The basic conclusion is that the project as envisioned is not feasible. The Conclusions section ends as follows:
“In summary, the data do not support the feasibility
of developing a source of subsurface feedwater on coastal
“Even if there were evidence for an extensive
low-permeability layer, or the potential environmental impacts considered
acceptable, the siting constraints of both the Coastal Commission and the State
Parks, combined with the relatively low-permeability sands limit the potential
amount of feedwater that could be developed and thusly limit project size to a
maximum of about 2,000 acre-feet per year.” [This potential yield is based on the use of
slant well technology for the intake of feedwater.]
MPWMD Staff Hypothetical, Reconnaissance-Level Estimate of Project
Costs
Even though the project is deemed
to be infeasible, staff was asked to provide an estimate of costs. The target yield of earlier investigations of
the project was 8,400 acre-feet per year.
Mr. Feeney’s report concludes that land-use constraints in
District Engineer Andrew Bell made a very rough estimate of what the costs would be, based on cost estimates by CDM in earlier studies of the 95-10 Desalination Project and on cost estimates prepared by RMC Water and Environment, consultant to Marina Coast Water District, for the Regional Water Supply Project and by Cal-Am consultants for the Coastal Water Project. A summary of the costs estimated by Mr. Bell for a project utilizing vertical wells and yielding 1,050 acre-feet per year (see page 21, first paragraph in Mr. Feeney’s November 2009 report for background on this yield amount) are as follows:
Total Capital Costs $42,000,000
Annualized Capital Costs 3,400,000 per year
(7% for 30 years)
Total Annual O&M Costs 1,200,000 per year
Total Annual Costs $ 4,600,000 per year
Unit Cost $ 4,400 per acre-foot
The estimated unit cost of water is high due to a combination of low project yield and extensive facilities that would be needed for a desalination project regardless of size, including plant controls, electrical transmission facilities, and the trenching, installation, and backfill for pipelines to convey water from intake wells to a plant, for treated water delivery, and for brine discharge. This results in a reverse “economy of scale” effect. Also, the costs shown above do not include some potentially significant additional costs, including rights-of-way, transmission and storage facilities within the Cal-Am system, and a fee for the use of the MRWPCA outfall for brine discharge.
IMPACT TO DISTRICT STAFF/RESOURCES: On January 29, 2009, the Board authorized professional services by Mr. Feeney at a cost not to exceed $291,800. Costs for services provided by Mr. Feeney and his subcontractors billed and paid through September 30, 2009 total approximately $67,140, including approximately $27,610 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-09. For work in FY 2009-10, the budgeted amount is $195,000. Because tasks included in the scope of work in Mr. Feeney’s professional services agreement will not proceed, costs in FY 2009-10 will be significantly less than budgeted.
District Engineer Andrew Bell is
administering the professional services agreement with Mr. Feeney. Mr. Bell and Water Resources Manager
Exhibits
None
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2009\20091214\ActionItems\23\item23.doc