This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 2. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: SUPPLY - 3/21/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment 

 

March 21, 2007

 

2. Supply

 

DESALINATION:

Desalination debate rages on; Monterey County: No action taken; lawyers will study report - Monterey Herald

 

LOCAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING:

Massive water plan posed; Complex reservoir, pipeline system to serve Sonoma County agriculturists - Santa Rosa Press Democrat

 

WATER TRANSFER:

Judge sets hearing date for Lemmon Valley water import case - Reno Gazette Journal

 

 

DESALINATION:

Desalination debate rages on; Monterey County: No action taken; lawyers will study report

Monterey Herald – 3/21/07

By Kevin Howe, staff writer

 

Whether the Monterey County Board of Supervisors allows private development of a regional desalination plant or not, California American Water's pilot desal project remains on track, company officials say.

 

The supervisors Tuesday accepted a report on the issues involved in changing the county's 1989 ordinance requiring that desalination plants be publicly owned to allow private agencies with sufficient financial resources and technical expertise to build them.

 

No decision to amend the ordinance happened Tuesday, County Administrative Officer Lew Bauman told the board, because it had not been listed as an action item in the meeting agenda. Instead, the board accepted the report and ordered the county's legal staff to submit proposals at an undetermined date.

 

The county Health Department has primary oversight of water systems, Bauman said, though other departments, including public works and planning, could become involved.

 

County Environmental Health Director Allen Stroh said desalination is "a very complex area" and the ordinance may need additional study.

 

The Health Department's concern, he said, is assuring a permanent, sufficient, healthy water supply provided by an agency that has the technical expertise and financial resources to do so.

 

Cal Am holds permits from the county and the state Coastal Commission to set up and operate an experimental, small-scale desalination plant at Moss Landing to determine whether removing the salt from seawater is the answer to meeting the Monterey Peninsula's water needs.

 

The ordinance does not apply to that pilot project as far as Cal Am is concerned because the water it would process won't be made available for human consumption, said company spokeswoman Catherine Bowie following Tuesday's hearing in Salinas.

 

Cal Am Vice President Kevin Tilden told supervisors the company is not opposed to a publicly owned desalination project, but wants the county to keep options open for private development of such a plant and provide more flexibility for the eventual development of desalination in Monterey Bay.

 

"The regulatory and legal environment" concerning desalination and water supply "has changed over the 18 years since the ordinance," he said.

 

Aaron Johnson of Cal Am said that in 1989, a number of small, mutual water systems "whose ability to provide adequate water was speculative at best" had caused problems in the past. Many of the small companies, he said, have since been absorbed into other major systems, including Cal Am's.

 

In August, supervisors approved a permit for Cal Am's pilot seawater desalination plant at Moss Landing, where the company ultimately proposes a full-scale plant to provide water throughout its service area.

 

In December, the state Coastal Commission also approved a coastal development permit for the experimental desalination plant.

In January, George Riley and Manuel Fierro, advocates of publicly owned water services organized as Friends of Locally Owned Water, filed suit in Monterey County Superior Court seeking to overturn those permits, contending the plant's authorization is at odds with the 1989 ordinance.

 

Riley told supervisors Tuesday that he considered the county's position that desalination was a public health issue "a charade," adding that public health arguments were not raised during desalination talks between the county and Cal Am in 2003.

 

"The public health argument doesn't relate to public-private ownership," he said. "Water is a public trust issue," and government has a role in regulating it.

 

Attorney Barbara May, representing FLOW at the Salinas hearing, said the clear intent of the supervisors in 1989 was to assure public ownership of desalination plants. She said public ownership would give customers lower rates and assure local control and public oversight.

 

She cited a decision in January by the 2nd District of the U.S. Court of Appeal that ruled the Environmental Protection Agency cannot allow power plants to kill fish through their cooling water intakes. Cal Am's proposed pilot plant would use Moss Landing Power Plant's cooling water intake and outfall system as its water source.

 

"That ruling," May said, "was not ambiguous."

 

Marc Del Piero, general counsel for the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District, which has its own desalination plant project in the works, argued that the 1989 ordinance is clear: Desalination plants must be public.

Sarah Corbin, Central California manager of the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation, said the 1989 ordinance was partly propelled by proposals that private property owners on the coast be given permits to build small home desalination plants where they had no water service.

 

That would have allowed "anyone with the money" to build a desalination system on the coast, she said. Surfrider is concerned about whether intake and discharge of such home plants would be monitored and regulated, and the effect on coastal development in remote areas if the home plants became widespread.

 

But another county resident said Tuesday that county officials should consider their own track record before excluding private ownership of desalination plants.

 

"Why are we even considering public ownership of desal?" said Nelson Vega, who said the county's record of managing public property -- including Natividad Medical Center, the county jail, the Salinas Courthouse and Juvenile Hall -- has been "terrible."

 

"We have a very bad track record."

 

The county, he said, "shouldn't deny Cal Am the right to produce a product that's already sold on store shelves." #

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/local/16944821.htm

 

 

LOCAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING:

Massive water plan posed; Complex reservoir, pipeline system to serve Sonoma County agriculturists

Santa Rosa Press Democrat – 3/21/07

By Bleys W. Rose, staff writer

 

The Sonoma County Water Agency is proposing a massive web of 19 reservoirs and 112 miles of pipeline to provide treated wastewater to agriculture in the Alexander, Dry Creek and Russian River valleys.

ADVERTISEMENT


At $375 million, the North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project would be almost 20 percent more expensive than the Highway 101 widening project now under way.

Vineyards operated by some of Sonoma County's premier grape growers comprise almost half the 47,000 acres that the Water Agency proposes to irrigate with wastewater treated under a process that filtrates and disinfects sewage for human use.

"Recycled water is a resource that can be used," said David Cuneo, the Water Agency's senior environmental specialist. "It can be used by agriculture so that other water could be used for drinking or for maintaining in-stream flows."

The huge water reuse project is part of the Water Agency's effort to convince state regulators that the county is doing its utmost to make the best use of the current supply and therefore gain approval for more releases from Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino reservoirs. The agency has also launched water conservation measures, instituted water allocation formulas for customers and initiated programs to save endangered fish.

Under the proposal, most of the treated wastewater would come from Santa Rosa's pipeline to The Geysers geothermal fields. Additional pipelines would divert the water to storage reservoirs and then to farms and vineyards.

Funding would come from a combination of state grants, loans, bonds, local funds and federal government money.

The environmental impact report, about three years in the works, has been anticipated by environmentalists, by farmers and grape growers in northern Sonoma County. It proposes water reuse on a much grander scale than a similar project unveiled last year for Sonoma Valley.

Sonoma County supervisors will hold a public hearing on the proposal May 15 and the Water Agency is accepting public comment until May 18. The full 603-page draft environmental impact report is available on the Web site www.sono macountywater.org.

Water Agency officials said increasing urban and agricultural demands on finite water supplies are prompting water recycling and reuse projects that are commonplace elsewhere in California. Currently, about 250 wastewater treatment plants in the state provide recycled water to irrigate crops, vineyards and pasture land, feed animals, supply nurseries and sprinkle parks and schoolyards.

Last fall, the Water Agency unveiled a water reuse and recycling plan for Sonoma Valley. It met with little citizen opposition and wide acceptance from city residents and agricultural interests in the valley. This project, however, is likely to encounter opposition from some landowners who already have said they don't want to use recycled water on their crops.

"Both projects are tailored to their location," Cuneo said. "That one had an urban aspect to it. This one is oriented to agriculture because that's what's in the north county."

During the past three years, several community meetings addressed proposals being considered for inclusion in the report released Tuesday. Cuneo said objections came from landowners concerned about loss of water rights and worried about impact on their property.

Cuneo said most landowners where the 19 reservoirs would be located have indicated interest in hosting water storage on their property. Many parcels are owned by prominent Alexander and Dry Creek wineries such as Jordan, Lytton, Young, Passalacqua and Gallo.

Pipelines would generally be buried along or under pavement on existing roadways, which the report acknowledges will result in traffic disruptions. Those routes include Westside and Eastside roads, Dry Creek and West Dry Creek roads, Healdsburg and Geyserville avenues, as well as Alexander Valley Road and Highway 128.  #
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/NEWS/703210327/1033/NEWS01

 

 

WATER TRANSFER:

Judge sets hearing date for Lemmon Valley water import case

Reno Gazette Journal – 3/20/07

By Susan Voyles, staff writer

 

While construction of the Vidler Water Co. pipeline continues between the Fish Springs Ranch to Lemmon Valley, water won't be imported until a federal lawsuit filed by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council is resolved.

 

U.S. District Judge Lloyd George in Las Vegas on Monday set a hearing date for March 29 to sort through a federal environmental impact study completed for the $100 million project to see if it adequately addressed the tribe's concerns about water quality in the Truckee River.

 

In the lawsuit filed last fall, the tribe said it opposes any water being imported from the Honey Lake Basin to the Stead and Lemmon Valley area flowing into the Truckee River and Pyramid Lake.

 

And that includes treated wastewater, Tribal Chairman Mervin Wright Jr. said.

 

He said the environmental impact statement did not specify what would happen with the wastewater, which would contain a higher amount of dissolved solids than river water.

 

On March 29, the judge could decide that the environmental impact statement should be supplemented or schedule a trial about the issue, said Steve Hartman, Vidler's vice president and a lawyer. He attended the hearing Monday.

 

Wright, elected tribal chairman March 8, said he is pleased the judge stopped water from being pumped from the Honey Lake Basin.

 

"We were successful in stopping the project," Wright said, calling the injunction was "a victory for the tribe."

 

Vidler President Dorothy Timian-Palmer said there is no intent for wastewater to flow into the river. Reno public works officials have a study under way to find uses for the treated wastewater, including irrigation for new projects and limited use in Swan Lake.

 

She expects the issue to be resolved before the project is completed at the end of the year, and the water would start to flow.

 

For the 28-mile pipeline, she said nearly eight miles have been finished and another 10 miles of open trench have been dug. A power substation also is under way. Vidler intends to sell 8,000 acre-feet of water, enough to build

16,000 urban homes.

 

The environmental study didn't address the wastewater in detail, leaving it to federal jurisdiction, Hartman said.

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would become involved if the Fish Springs Ranch water added dissolved solids to the river that violated discharge standards for the river, Hartman said. #

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070320/NEWS10/703200337/1016/NEWS

####

No comments:

Blog Archive