Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-23; Municipal Water District; 0223.02; Lining & Covering of Maerkle Reservoir ProjectCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BILL )EPT. -,Q z 0 F 0 a n a a B CITY MGR. ~ I TITLE: LINING AND COVERING OF IDEPT. HD. pz& MAERKLE RESERVOIR PROJECT (CITY ATTY ~ IECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is requesting that the Commission agree to proceed with the design to line and cover the Maerkle Reservoir Facilities. lTEM EXPLANATION: This project is the result of a directive from the State of California Department of Health Services and also from the Needs Study performed for the District by Dudek & Associates (formerly Luke-Dudek Civil Engineers, Inc.) With Board approval, the first of three phases of this project began in 1988 with the design and construction of a 10 million gallon water storage facility. This storage facility was constructed to help offset the loss of operational storage anticipated when the large open reservoir was drained for the lining and covering phase. Upon completion of this 10 million gallon facility, the second phase of this project began in 1991 with the design and construction of pumping facilities and chloramination facilities. Because of the District's water distribution system hydraulics, about 400 acre feet of water stored in the Maerkle Reservoir were available. With the addition of the pumping facilities, 200 additional acre feet of water in the Maerkle Reservoir are now available. In addition, the construction of the chloramination facilities allows the district to utilize the water in the Maerkle Reservoir in conjunction with water in the system that comes directly from Metropolitan Water District. The third phase of the project began in 1992 with the design of the lining and covering of the reservoir. At the June 23, 1993, Commission meeting a presentation was made by the consultant John Powell and Associates. This presentation reviewed the 10% design report, and stafl's recommendation was to proceed with the design. The Commission requested some additional information including filtration alternatives and utilizing a concrete liner rather than an asphalt liner. At the July 28, 1993, Commission meeting these alternatives were reviewed and costs were presented. After discussion it was decided to write to the Department of Health Services requesting an exemption from lining and covering the reservoir. At the November 10th meeting a report by Powell & Associates on two items pertaining to the lining and covering project were reviewed by the Commission. The concrete liner option and construction of a filtration plant were determined to be infeasible. A third item reviewed was the response from the Department of Health Services to the District's request for an exemption from lining and covering the reservoir. After discussion of this item the Commission requested staff to ask the Department of Health Services to explain their response with the Commission at the next Commission meeting, and discuss any alternatives. Agenda Bill No. 0223-02 Page 2 At the December 8, 1993, Commission meeting representatives of the County Water Authority and the Department of Health Services were present. The County Water Authority representative reviewed 10-day storage policy. In addition, Ms. Toby Roy from the Department of Health Services reviewed the Department of Health services' response regarding the District's request for an exemption. Ms. Roy summarized the letter by stating that the District could certainly apply for an exemption but would be required to construct additional facilities and perform substantial additional testing. The approval of the exemption would take approximately 6 months from the State and EPA. Ms. Roy did point out that regardless of the additional facilities constructed and money spent on this exemption, should we fail any of the tests (i.e. tests for Giardia cysts) we would be immediately under orders to line and cover the reservoir or construct a treatment facility within an 18 month time period. Due to the extra cost and probability of failing future tests causing the District to construct the lining and cover, staff does not recommend pursuing the exemption alternative. After discussion it was decided to put off action until Commissioner Lewis could be present. At the January 12, 1994, Commission meeting, the Commission requested that staff write a letter to Ms. Roy asking her to reconsider her decision regarding the use of Maerkle Reservoir. (see attached staff letter and response) Also at the January 12th Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the possibi2ity of revising the present City/Dktrict policy of having a minimum of 10 days "emergency storage" to that of 10 days "self-sufficiency". Staff strongly recommends that the Commission recommend any change in present policy to the Board of Directors. As previously mentioned by staff, the entire Carlsbad Growth Management Plan is based on a 10-day emergency storage policy, and this policy would not be subject to revision by the City. Attached for the Commission is information on various alternatives discussed at several Commission meetings since June, 1993. 1. Exhl'bit 'A' 3. Exhibit 'C January 26,1994 Ca r I s bad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Engineering: (619) 438-3367 Administration: (6 19) 438-2722 Fax: (619) 431-1601 Ms. Toby Roy, District Engineer Department of Health Services Oidsion of Drinking Water and Environmental Management 1350 Front Street, Room 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 MAERKLE RESERVOIR LINING AND COVERING, CMWD PROJECT NO. 90-109 Dear Toby: The Carlsbad Water Commission, at their January 12th meeting, asked staff to request that you reconsider your decision to isolate our Maerkle Reservoir. I am referring to your letter to me, dated September 8, 1993, whereby you informed us that if we desire to use the reservoir before the problem is corrected, we will be required to notify the public in accordance with Tie 22, Chapter 17, Section 64666 (c) of the SWTR The Commission feels that the reservoir has served the community well for years and the water is chlorinated and monitored. Therefore, the Commission is requesting we appeal your decision to shutdown the reservoir. Any consideration you can give this request is greatly appreciated. Very truty yours, L&?T U ROBERT J. GREANEY GENERAL MANAGER RJG:mg ce: District Engineer Operations Superintendent EXHIBIT 'A' 'Serving Carlsbad for over 35 years' cAUFoRNu--HEAllM AND WElfARL AGEW PETE WILSON, bocrma # DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF ORfNKlNG WATER 1350 FRONT STREET, ROOM 2050 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 FAX (619) 525-4363 (619) 525-4159 February 1, 1994 Robert Greaney General Manager Carlsbad Municipal Water District Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Greaney: 5950 El Camino Real i! - .--._ '-1 *,IC - ----- .- - . This is in response to your letter dated January 26, 1994. In our September 8, 1993, letter we did not shut-down the Maerkle Reservoir. Carlsbad MWD can use Water from Maerkle Reservoir as long as the District notifies the public in accordance with Title 22, Chapter 17, Section 64666 (c) of the Surface Water Filtration and Disinfection Treatment Regulations (SWTR). The District will be required to notify the public once during each and every quarter in which the District uses water from Maerkle Reservoir. The method of notification would be by publication of a Department approved statement, including the required wording from Section 64666, in a local newspaper. These requirements are consistent with the Department's policies regarding unfiltered surface water sources. In addition, all water systems applying for an exemption from the SWR are required to notify the public until they demonstrate compliance with the exemption criteria. If you have any questions regarding this letter contact Steve Williams at (619) 525-4580. Sincerely, Toby J. Roy, P.EA-J District Engineer Enclosure cc: San Diego County Environmental Health Services L020194. Doc/ JSW/Sl EXHIBIT 'B' 1 Since June, 1993, several options to lining and covering the open Maerkle Reservoir have been discussed by the Commission. These alternatives are reviewed as follows: A. Apply for "filtration avoidanm" (exemption) If CMWD were to apply for and secure "filtration avoidance", lining and covering of the existing Maerkle open reservoir would be avoided. However, in order to secure this "avoidance" CMWD must demonstrate proper chlorine contact time and must substantially increase water quality testing to comply with new requirements (Le. turbidity samples must be collected every four hours). Since we do not currently meet the chlorine contact time required by State and EPA, an additional 4.5 million gallon storage facility must be constructed. The "pros and cons" of this alternative are listed as follows: 1. Avoid construction of lining and covering project resulting in cost savings of $7.5 million. 2. Complies with State and EPA requirements, when complying with requirements of "filtration avoidance". 1. Construction of additional 4.5 million gallon storage facility including additional site piping, cost at a minimurn of $2.0 million, plus operation and maintenance costs of increased testing requirements (Personnel and testing equipment). 2. No guarantee that all tests in future will pass. One failed test (for example, test for Giardia) would result in State and EPA mandate to line and cover reservoir or construct treatment facilities within 18 months of StatdEPA order. This would necessitate expenditures of $7.5 million (present day estimates) added to the $2.0 million cost of the additional storage facility, made unnecessary as a result of State/EPA order. 3. Upon notification of failed test, CMWD would once again be without 10-day emergency storage supply. 4. Would be subject to ever increasing State and EPA regulations concerning water quality and water quality protection and therefore would result in revocation of "filtration avoidance" and requirement to filter or line and cover. Would result in greater overall costs. Page 2 of Exhiiit 'C B. Constnretnew reservoir with liner and cover on adjacent CMWD property in lieu of lining and coverhg 'old" Maerkle Reservoir. Utilize "old" Ma* Reservoir for reclaimed water. Construction of a new reservoir of 10-day emergency storage capacity (600 acre feet) would involve lengthy EIR review and opposition from Oceanside residents located in Leisure Village, directly below the new earthen dam and directly in the flood inundation zone. The construction cost alone for this altemative would be approximately $40.0 million, including lining and covering and, should the "old" Maerkle reservoir be utilized for reclaimed water, additional monies would have to be spent to line and cover this reservoir to inhibit algae growth which would be detrimental to irrigation usage (drip irrigation). The "pros and cons" of this alternative are listed as follows: PROS 1. Complies with State and EPA requirements regarding protection of treated water supply. - CONS 1. 2. 3. 4. C Added cost of new reservoir with liner and cover at a minimum of $40.0 million plus additional costs to cover "old" reservoir for reclaimed water storage. Additional time and costs for EIR, design, etc., with no assurances that project would be acceptable to Oceanside citizens. Additional time, 3 years minimum for EIR process design and construction, that CMWD would be without emergency storage. The amount of storage the "old" Maerkle Reservoir would provide for reclaimed water is more than reasonably needed according to the presently approved Reclaimed Water Master Plan C~nstructnewresenrOir on adjacent CMWDpmpertyand then line and cover "old" Maerkle Reservoir for potable water storage. Same pros and cons as previous altemative except where they relate to reclaimed water storage. Additional argument against this alternative is the creation of additional potable water storage over and above that outlined in the District's Potable Water Master Plan. Page 3 of Exhiiit 'C This is the alternative recommended by staff. It involves reshaping the bottom of the existing reservoir and installing an asphaltic liner and a flexiile Hypalon cover. This alternative would comply with the present State and EPA requirements concerning protection of a treated water supply. The estimated cost for this alternative is $7.5 million. 1. Complies with State and EPA requirements regarding protection of treated water supply. 2. Could be installed and on-line sooner than other alternatives mentioned herein. 3. Least costly alternative considering the potential for the "filtration avoidance" alternative to become more costly should treatment or lining and covering be required as a result of a failed test. 4. Reduces or eliminates evaporative losses resulting in dollar savings of purchased treated water. CONS 1. Would be more costly than "filtration avoidance" alternative (but only assuming District will never fail any required test.) E. Abandon the open Maerkk Reservoir or coIlveTt to redaimed water stow and work with neighboring agencies to develop 1-y storage tzneqpq self--. This alternative would eliminate the present 10-day emergency storage facility for potable water which would require a policy change by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. Since the present City's Growth Management Plan contains a 10-day emergency storage requirement, indications are that a policy change to a 10-day "self-sufficiency" would not be approved. As a result, this alternative does not warrant any further consideration at this time.