Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-15; Municipal Water District; 237; Covering & Lining Maerkle ReservoirCARLSBAC-IUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT- AGENDA \ IC AB # m$iii2 ’ -‘-’ - I I I Lt: 1 MTG. 1$/15/94 APPROVAL OF SUPPLFMEWAL AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR COVERING AND LINING CITY ATTY <W DEPT. cm IWXERKLE RESERVOIR, AND RECONFIRMING PROCEEDING WITH THE PROJECT CITY MGR. Sb- RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. $!b& approving a supplemental agreement for the design services for covering and lining Maerkle Reservoir, CMWD Project No. 90-109, and Resolution No. 863 reconfirming proceeding with the covering and lining project. I ITEM EXPLANATION: The third phase of expansion and upgrading of the Maerkle Reservoir Facilities consists of covering and lining Maerkle Reservoir. On December 8, 1992, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 199 approving an agreement for engineering services for the design report, plans and specifications for the covering and lining of Maerkle Reservoir, CMWD Project No. 90-109, between John Powell & Associates and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. After a preliminary evaluation of the project and several meetings with District staff, John Powell & Associates determined that the following additional services are required. These services have not yet been performed. + A perimeter access road for access to the floating cover is an important element of the project. + In those areas where a perimeter access road is not feasible due to the topography, an access walkway and a series of stairways will be designed to provide access to the reservoir. + The existing diversion channel is unlined, and in some areas, pooling of water occurs during rainstorms. As a part of the pre-design study, it was found that the existing channel did not function well and was in need of substantial improvement. As a result, this channel will be regraded and lined with concrete to promote drainage and prevent water from moving toward the reservoir. Furthermore, the Water Commission requested that additional studies be performed to determine if lining and covering the reservoir was necessary. The Commission also wanted an evaluation of various alternatives, such as using concrete as opposed to porous asphalt for the liner and the feasibility of constructing a treatment plant. These studies have been completed and involved additional meetings and two letter reports to the District. After reviewing the level of effort and man-hours needed to address the services described above, John Powell & Associates has submitted a request for a lump sum fee of $25,202 for those additional services. After review of the request, staff recommends approval of the supplemental agreement. The Commission also requested that staff provide additional information concerning the possibility of receiving an “exemption” (filtration avoidance) to the requirement to line and cover the reservoir. Staff communicated with the Department of Health Services several times and determined that an “exemption” can be pursued. (Please refer to Exhibit 3 for details.) However, if an “exemption” is granted, there would be no guarantee that the District could consistently meet the additional water quality testing limits imposed by the State and EPA. Failure of any of the additional water quality tests would result in a State and EPA order to construct a water treatment plant or line and cover the reservoir. As a result, securing an “exemption” and its required conditions would not be a prudent alternative, and staff continues to recommend proceeding with the lining and covering project. This project conforms to the recommendations made in the approved Water Master Plan, adopted by the Board on January 29, 1991. Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 23 FISCAL IMPACT: The District’s 1992-93 CIP Budget appropriated $587,500 for the third phase expansion and upgrading of Maerkle Reservoir Facilities. This supplemental agreement will not exceed $25,202. The original agreement with John Powell & Associates is in the amount of $119,300, bringing the total amount of this phase to $144,502. The remaining funds in the 1993-94 budget will be for additional surveys, soils and site investigations. The total cost of the project is estimated at $7,000,000, and staff anticipates that the District will issue bonds to fund construction; funds will be appropriated in the budget for fiscal year 1994-95. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map. 2. Resolution No. &A approving the supplemental agreement for the preparation of covering and lining Maerkle Reservoir. 3. Resolution No. 8673 reconfirming proceeding with the lining and covering of Maerkle Reservoir. 4. Water Commission Agenda Bill #0223-02 to discuss the lining and covering of Maerkle Reservoir Project. LOCATION MAP VISTA , OQMEL CCEANSICE /- v/S TA ‘\ CARLSB D / , VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME: MAERKLE DAM COVERING 8 LINING PROJECT NO. EXHIBIT NO. 90409 1 _- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 862 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD, MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, FOR APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PREPARATION OF COVERING AND LINING MAERIUE RESERVOIR, CMWD PROJECT NO. 90- 109 WHEREAS, on December 8, 1992, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 199 approving an agreement in the amount of one hundred nineteen thousand, three hundred dollars ($119,300) for engineering services for the design report, plans and specifications for the covering and lining of Maerkle Reservoir, CMWD Project No. 90-109, between John Powell & Associates, Inc., and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District; and WHEREAS, the Water Commission requested additional studies which required several meetings and two letter reports to the District; and WHEREAS, after a preliminary evaluation of the project it was determined that additional services are required; and WHEREAS, John Powell & Associates, Inc., has submitted a request for a lump sum fee of twenty-five thousand, two hundred two dollars ($25,202) for the additional services required; and WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds available in the Capital Improvement Plan budget to cover the contract amount of $25,202; and WHEREAS, District staff recommends approval of the supplemental agreement between John Powell & Associates, Inc., and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District for additional engineering services for the design report, plans and specifications for the covering and lining of Maerkle Reservoir. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. ,- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The Engineering Services Supplemental Agreement, attached to this resolution, between John Powell & Associates, Inc., and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District is on file with the District and incorporated hereby reference, is accepted. 3. The Executive Manager is authorized to execute the Supplemental Agreement. PASSED, APPROVED AND ACCEPTED at a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District held on the 15th day of MARCH , 1994, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Board Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard NOES: None ABSENT: Board Member Finnila CLAUDE A. LEWIS: Pr%fle’nt - ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Secretary (SEAL) CMWD 90- 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _- SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF COVERING ANI2 LINING OF MAERKLE RESERVOIR - CMWD PROJECT NO. 90-109 . THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS MADE THIS 17th day of MARCH I 1%2L between the CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as B8DISTRICTf18 and John Powell. & Adds. Tnc. as "CONSULTANTul . hereinafter referred to ~~~~~ RECITALS WHEREAS, DISTRICT has entered into an agreement dated December 11 , 19 92 , with CONSULTANT to provide design and engineering services and deliver to DISTRICT complete plans, specifications and cost estimates for $119,300.00 One hundred nineteen thousand three hundred dollars ,hereinafterreferredtoas "the Agreement." WHEREAS, DISTRICT has determined that changes in circumstance cause it to be prudent and necessary to alter the scope of work contained in the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants and conditions, the parties hereto agree to supplement the Agreement by the addition of the following: SECTION 1. . CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS is amended as follows: Additional items added to Scope of Work, as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. 1 g/11/92 REV. 1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2k 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 4 . FEES TO BE PAID TO THE CONSULTANT is amended to include: Total Fees to be paid to the CONSULTANT for additional work authorized as by supplemental agreement shall not exceed $ 25,202.OO . All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain the same and are not affected by this Supplemental Agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 17th day of MARCH r 19 94 . 2ARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CONSULTANT JOHN F'CWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. RAYMOND R. PATCHETT, Executive Manager ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAGTENKRANZ \ Secretary (SEAL) CMWD 90- 1.09 \ JbHN M. PCWELL (Name) PRESIDENT (Title) APP OVED AS TO FORM: A RONALD R. BALL, General Counsel 3,ldeCW. 2 g/11/92 REV. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR f State of 4 ,(-L<' '.fi -,: :, G'C , ; I County of " ,)‘;' t: ; ' Q,, ' .. <, ) ss I / . ‘I On /\ ,.‘/‘,’ : ,i 4 .(,f./ &.i i-/i/ 77 I before me, . . ,i ‘, I ’ )\/,/( ‘,(( ‘A// ’ 7 4 1 ,’ L; ,/; ,/:, /I’.’ / I (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared i #' ' i! \, /q -.g (,/I- 1 [ ,personallyknownto me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shefthey executed the sime in his/herfiheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature($) on the instrument the person($), or the entity upon behalf of which the person($) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. I 4 I_ y L ( ( r: ’ i’y L,,.,! .’ ‘- I c --.(./I ( ,,’ 'Signature CM$JD 7%ir, 7 3 (SEAL) 9/11/92 REV. _- EXHIBIT “A” Paae one of one SCOPE OF WORK WATER COMMISSION STUDIES As discussed, we have prepared a preliminary evaluation of a water treatment facility to replace covering and lining of the reservoir. This study included developing preliminary size, layouts and cost opinions for the construction of a water treatment facility that could replace the covering and lining of the reservoir. This facility included a direct filtration water treatment facility using conventional gravity or pressure filters as well as a comparative life cycle economic evaluation of the various options. In addition, we prepared a cost opinion and short discussion for the construction of a reinforced concrete liner in lieu of a porus asphalt liner as recommended in the predesign report. These additional studies have included, to date, the investigation and writing of two letter reports to the District (dated July 27, 1993 and October 2, 1993), attendance to several meetings with the District and preparation of flow schematics and a site layout for the proposed treatment facility. In addition, it is planned to revise our October 12 letter in accordance with your comments and prepare for and make a presentation to the Commission on November IO, 1993. ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICES 1. Reservoir Access Perimeter Road. In our initial discussions with the District Engineer, it was stated that the need for a reservoir perimeter access road was not clear, so for purposes of the proposal, it should not be included in the scope. However, during the predesign phase, it was determined that a perimeter access road was required for access to the floating cover, and is an important element of the project. 2. Access Walkway and Stairs. In those areas where a perimeter access road is not feasible due to the topography, as access walkway and a series of stairways will be designed to provide access to the reservoir. Once again, these facilities were not envisioned in the original scope. 3. Drainage Diversion Channel. The existing diversion channel in unlined and in some areas ponding of water occurs during rainstorms. As with the access road, based on our discussions with the District staff, the need for improvements to the channel was undetermined at the time of our original proposal, and we were directed to assume no work would be required. As a part of the predesign study, it was found that the existing channel did not function well and was in need of substantial improvement. As a result this channel will be regraded and lined with concrete to promote drainage and prevent water from moving toward the reservoir. Additional survey and topographic mapping will be required to perform the design of the drainage channel. Since the District performed the initial surveys and topographic mapping for the project, it is our understanding that the District would have its survey consultant perform the additional survey work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ~ 27 the Maerkle Reservoir improvement project that included three phases: 1) design and construction of a ten-million gallon water storage facility, 2) the design and construction of pumping facilities and chloramination facilities, and 3) the lining and covering of the open Maerkle Reservoir; and Services would not be a prudent alternative in light of resulting required conditions; and WHEREAS, the lining and covering project conforms to recommendations made in the approved CMWD Water Master Plan adopted by the Board of Directors on January 29, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District as follows: /I I/ /I II II /I I/ // I/ 28 RESOLUTION NO. 863 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARSLBAD, MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECONFIRMING PROCEEDING WITH THE LINING AND COVERING OF MAERKLE RESERVOIR WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District approved WHEREAS, the first two phases of the project have been completed; and WHEREAS, the pursuit of filtration avoidance approval from the Department of Health 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. ! I 1 2 I3 4 E c E 7 E 9 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. That proceeding with the lining and covering of the open Maerkle Reservoir as planned in Phase III of the Maerkle Reservoir improvement project is reconfirmed. . PASSED, APPROVED AND ACCEPTED at a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District held on the 15th day of MARCH , 1994, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Board Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard NOES: None ABSENT: Board Member Finnila ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Secret (SEAL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _- SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF COVERING AND LINING OF MAEEXLE RESERVOIR - U'lWD PROJECT NO. 90-109 THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS MADE THIS 17th day of MARCH I 1994, between the CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as 88DISTRICT18 and John Powell. & associates. Tnc. hereinafter referred to as '@CONSULTANT". RECITALS WHEREAS, DISTRICT has entered into an agreement dated December 11 , 19 92 ‘ with CONSULTANT to provide design and engineering services and deliver to DISTRICT complete plans, specifications and cost estimates for $119,300.00 One hundred nineteen thousand three hundred dollars , hereinafterreferredtoas "the Agreement." WHEREAS, DISTRICT has determined that changes in circumstance cause it to be prudent and necessary to alter the scope of work contained in the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants and conditions, the parties hereto agree to supplement the Agreement by the addition of the following: SECTION 1. . CONSIIl,'l'ANl"S OT3T,ICA'I'IONS is amended as follows: Additional items added to Scope of Work, as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. 1 g/11/92 REV. 1 2 II 6 II lo SECTION 4 II . FEES TO BE PAID TO THE CONSULTANT is amended to 11 include: Total Fees to be paid to the CONSULTANT for additional l3 work authorized as by supplemental agreement shall not exceed 14 $ 25,202.OO . All other terms and conditions of the 15 Agreement remain the same and are not affected by this Supplemental 16 Agreement. II IN WITNESS THEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and 18 /I seals this 17th day of MARCH , 19 94 . 19 20 21 d 23 24 25 26 27 28 CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER CONSULTANT DISTRICT -RAYMOND R. PATCHETT, Executive Manager ATTEST: I’RES T IWN’I’ (Title) ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ ' Secretary (SEAL) ET";;> RONALD R. BALL, , , , General Counsel /I CMWD 90-109 2 9/11/K! REV. .'I NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR State of .f - ( ( ,c/‘,< )/L4q4 4 .I i i:) County of / ,,f;i i ; ,(()L,/ ‘: -,l ) ss , , . : On /\ I.,/, ' (' , " .'-7 <..A ..&+../ /-/i/r .-q before me, --4 .- ,I. ', % (' jz/,/(- / (.: A /'7/q/ L' c ( !.', I}</ / (--- / ,I (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared .jpli A/ IL'/ '.p-, (! );I-_. [ 1 ,personallyknownto me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shefthey executed the same in hisfherftheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature($) on the instrument the person($), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(q) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. \: > . -- ,’ : : i il tt t / ! / d ,, &.~<,:‘, (’ ) 'Signature " ' CmD ~6-i~ 7 g/11/92 REv. i I ) EXHIBIT “A” Paae one of one SCOPE OF WORK WATER COMMISSION STUDIES As discussed, we have prepared a preliminary evaluation of a water treatment facility to replace covering and lining of the reservoir. This study included developing preliminary size, layouts and cost opinions for the construction of a water treatment facility that could replace the covering and lining of the reservoir. This facility included a direct filtration water treatment facility using conventional gravity or pressure filters as well as a comparative life cycle economic evaluation of the various options. In addition, we prepared a cost opinion and short discussion for the construction of a reinforced concrete liner in lieu of a porus asphalt liner as recommended in the predesign report. These additional studies have included, to date, the investigation and writing of two letter reports to the District (dated July 27, 1993 and October 2, 1993), attendance to several meetings with the District and preparation of flow schematics and a site layout for the proposed treatment facility. In addition, it is planned to revise our October 12 letter in accordance with your comments and prepare for and make a presentation to the Commission on November IO, 1993. ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICES 1. 2. 3. Reservoir Access Perimeter Road. In our initial discussions with the District Engineer, it was stated that the need for a reservoir perimeter access road was not clear, so for purposes of the proposal, it should not be included in the scope. However, during the predesign phase, it was determined that a perimeter access road was required for access to the floating cover, and is an important element of the project. Access Walkway and Stairs. In those areas where a perimeter access road is not feasible due to the topography, as access walkway and a series of stairways will be designed to provide access to the reservoir. Once again, these facilities were not envisioned in the original scope. Drainage Diversion Channel. The existing diversion channel in unlined and in some areas ponding of water occurs during rainstorms. As with the access road, based on our discussions with the District staff, the need for improvements to the channel was undetermined at the time of our original proposal, and we were directed to assume no work would be required. As a part of the predesign study, it was found that the existing channel did not function well and was in need of substantial improvement. As a result this channel will be regraded and lined with concrete to promote drainage and prevent water from moving toward the reservoir. Additional survey and topographic mapping will be required to perform the design of the drainage channel. Since the District performed the initial surveys and topographic mapping for the project, it is our understanding that the District would have its survey consultant perform the additional survey work. - _-, ?.- .EXHIBIT NO. 4 CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BILL AB#m Ta LINING AND COVERING OF MTG 02/23/94 MAERKLE RESERVOIR PROJECX DEPT. HD. /&i& . CITY ATTY ~ DEPT. c1v~dr9)---- CITY MGR. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is requesting that the Commission agree to proceed with the design to line and cover the MaerkIe Reservoir Facilities. I ITEM 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 approvaI, 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 Iining and covering phase. Upon completion of this 10 million gaIlon 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 MaerkIe 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 Iining 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 staffs recommendation was to proceed with the design The Commission requested some additional information including fihration 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 p request for an exemption from Iining and covering the reservoir. After discussion of this item the Commission requested staff to ask the Depar&nent of Health Services to explain their 2 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 IO-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 possibility of revising the present City/District policy of having a minimum of 10 days “emergency storage” to that of 10 days “self-sufficiency”. Staff strongly recommends that the Commission a 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 lo-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 dkussed at several Commission meetings since June, 1993. EXHIBITS 1. Exhibit ‘A’ 2. Exhibit ‘B’ 3. Exhibit ‘C Carlhad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbod, CA 92008 Engineering: (619) 438-3367 Administrotlon: (619) 438-2722 Fox: (619) 431-1601 January 26,1994 Ms. Toby Roy, District Engineer Department qf Health ,Services Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management 1350 Front Street, Room 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 MAERKLE RESERVOIR LfNlNG 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 Maarkle Reservoir. I am risferring to your letter to me, dated September 8, 1993, whereby you informed US that if we desire to us8 the reservoir before the problem is corrected, we will be required to notify the publii In accordance with Tie 22, Chapter 17, Section 84688 (c) of the SWTR. The Commission feels that the reservoir has served the community wetl 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 truly yours, &-+f-y ., ROBERT 3. GREANEY GENERAL MANAGER . RJG:mg CC: District Engineer Operations Superintendent EXHIBIT 'A' ‘Serving Carlsbad for over 35 years l DEbAklhiENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 3 OFFICE OF ORINKING WAfEA 1350 FRONT STREET, ROOM 2066 SAN DIEGO. CA 92101 (619) 5264liQ FAX (619) 5264383 February 1, 1994 Robert Greaney General Manager Carlsbad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Greaney: ---; --.- _ i This is in response to your letter dated January 26, 1994. In our September 8, 1993, letter we did not shut-down the Xaerkle 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 SWTR are required to notify the public until exemption criteria. they demonstrate compliance with the . If you have any questions Williams at (619) 525-4580. regarding this 'letter contact Steve Sincerely, Toby J. Roy, P.&-J District Engineer Enclosure cc: San Diego County Environmental Health Services t020194.DX/J.SWSl EXHIBIT 'B' 1 Since June, 1993, several options to lining and covering the open Maerkle Reservoir have been discussed by the Co mmission. These alternatives are reviewed as follows: A. Apply for YSation avoidance’ (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 (i.e. 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: PROS 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”. CONS 1. Construction of additional 4.5 million gallon storage facility including additional site piping, cost at a minimum 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 State/EPA 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 IO-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 Exhibit ‘C a coJlstnlctnew reservoirwith~~andcoveronadjacent~propertyin~of~ and covering mol# Maerkle Reservoir. Utilh ‘ol<r MaerIde Reservoir for re&imed water. Construction of a new reservoir of IO-day emergency storage capacity (600 aae 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 alternative 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). 7’he “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. 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. 2. Additional time and costs for EIR, design, etc., with no assurances that project would be acceptable to Oceanside citizens. 3. Additional time, 3 years minimum for EIR process design and construction, that CMWD would be without emergency storage. 4. 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 CL constructnew reservoir on adjacent CINIWD properly and then he and cover *old’ h&d& Rselvoir for potable water storage. Same pros and cons as previous alternative 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 Exhibit ‘C D. proceedivithinstallationofliningand~~ofexistingopenMa~Reservoir. This is the alternative recommended by staff. It involves reshaping the bottom of the existing reservoir and installing an asphaltic liner and a flexible 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. PROS 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. beast 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 Maerlde Reservoir or convert to reclaimed water storage and work with neighboring agenck to develop lo-day storage emcqemyself-w. This alternative would eliminate the present IO-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 Cit+ Growth Management Plan contains a lo-day emergency storage requirement, indications are that a policy change to a lo-day “self-sufficienc)r would pot be approved. As a result, this alternative does not warrant any further consideration at this time.