Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Water Resources Advisory Committee - 09/16/2004 667897 MINUTES DEO 200i7a ' � Water Resources Advisory Committee 11:30 a.m. — September 16,.2004 . , ° Water Department Conference Room d/ Members present: Lena Coleman, Capt. Paula Hinger, Herman R. Johnson, Bob Kent, Jon Kiggans, Dr. Karen Rue, Carola Serrato, Dr.Jane Stanford, and Kimberly Stockseth. Staff Present: Ron Massey,Assistant City Manager Eduardo Garana, Director of Water Saundra Thaxton, Finance& Resource Management Superintendent Max Castaneda,Water Resources Management Advisor Yolanda R. Marruffo, Public Relations and Marketing Coordinator Chairperson Carola Serrato called meeting to order at 11:45 a.m. A quorum was present. I. Approval of June 18,2004 Minutes The minutes of June 18, 2004 were reviewed. Mr. Kiggans requested that page 8 of the minutes be corrected to read homeland security instead of homeless security. With no further changes, Capt. Hinger motioned to approve the minutes; seconded by Lena Coleman and approved unanimously. Mrs. Serrato asked Mr. Garana to discuss the recent newspaper article featured in the Caller Times. Mr. Garana stated that the article featured the findings of a study as authorized by the USEPA and conducted by the University of Illinois. The City voluntarily participated in the study. The article was published in American Chemical Society, a trade journal. Reporter Matthew Sturdevant became aware of the article based on a news release. Mr. Garana stated that the newspaper article was written with an inflammatory headline. The article was printed on the front fold of the newspaper, entitled, "Toxic Chemical found in City drinking water". Mr. Garana stated that studies are always finding "stuff' in drinking water. The study stated that the toxic chemical is extremely bad. The studies generally require several years of testing. Mr. Garana stated that a blunder in the study claimed that Corpus Christi was chosen because of the high bromide in its raw water and that no other cities use chloramines. He stated that Corpus Christi is not the only city that uses chloramines. There are 100 other cities that use chloramines in their drinking water treatment, including as Dallas, Houston and Austin. He stated that there are two sides of the coin such as the distribution system. We use chloramines and liquid aluminum sulfate when water is introduced into the water treatment plant. Some water treatment plants such as Fort Worth use ozone at the front end, but at the treatment end they use chloramines. All these disinfectants can produce by-products which are identified in the research. Mr. Garana stated that he spoke with representatives from the USEPA and TCEQ. He stated that TCEQ was livid with the way the newspaper article was written because they have primacy in drinking water rules. The City operates under the federal guidelines of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996. The USEPA promulgates the rules and the states are given primacy to implement the rules. Mr. Garana stated that before changes can be made to the treatment process, they must be approved by TCEQ. He stated that TCEQ is happy that Corpus Christi is ahead of the curve of upcoming regulations. The TCEQ enforces the disinfection and the disinfection by- product rule. Further examination of disinfection by-products is being further studied. In 1996, USEPA determined that there was insufficient information to change the rules. Under the USEPA Information Collection Rule (1997— 1999), Corpus Christi submitted a multitude of water samples under a mandate. The disinfection by-product rule has been phased in as well as long-term enhancement surface water treatment rule No. 2. Mr. Garana stated that research was being conducted on trihaloacetic acids and haloacetic acids. The recent study found iodoacids in our SCANNED • surface water: The American Water Works Association was not even aware that these things were in the horizon. Because of the newspaper article, the City went to the agencies and they supported us and issued a statement saying that the City of Corpus Christi is safe to drink and is in conformance with existing regulations and that we have excellent drinking water. Mr. Garana reiterated that Corpus Christi is meeting all federal and state guidelines. He stated that a follow- up story was featured on the lower section of the newspaper. He stated that staff was expecting a flurry of telephone calls; however only three telephone inquiries were made. Mr. Kent stated that no one was challenging whether the City is following TCEQ rules. He stated that the study identified compounds that were unknown to exist in our drinking water. Mr. Garana stated that was a true statement. Mr. Kent stated that no one was contrary to what Mr. Garana was saying; however, this is information that TCEQ and the City did not know about. Mr. Kent stated that the City should act accordingly_with the new data. Mr. Garana stated that Mr. Kent was absolutely correct. Mr. Garana stated that the City works closely with TCEQ. Mr. Garana stated that prior to Mr. Kent's arrival; he explained how the City had been involved extensively with numerous research studies. Mr. Garana stated that the City was upset in how the newspaper article was captioned. He stated that it was inflammatory. Capt. Hinger stated that she did not receive a single call to question the headline. She stated that after reading the news story, she quickly ratcheted the article 100 points based on new research information. Mrs. Serrato stated that after serving on a USEPA federal advisory committee for five years, she was surprised on how they approach new regulations. For example, they attempted to reduce the maximum contaminant level on arsenic from 50 to 10 parts per million based on studies conducted in the Philippines and South America, when there were local studies that could have been done. USEPA ignored dietary and environmental exposure found in those other countries. Mrs. Serrato asked if the City was going to send notice to wholesale customers. Mr. Garana agreed. He stated that eventually smaller cities could not absorb the costs of treating water to the degree that larger cities can. II. Update on the Corpus Christi Large-Scale Desalination Facility Feasibility Study Mr. Garana stated that a presentation was given the Regional Water Planning Group and again at the public hearing held at the Corpus Christi Central Library on September 9, 2004. One person attended the public hearing. He stated that today was the last day for public comment. He reviewed the summary of tasks that was included in the study as conducted by Turner Collie& Braden. Task 1: Site Requirements-Barney Davis Power Plant Mr. Garana stated the Barney Davis Plant was still being considered. He noted that there was a recent changein ownership. The consultant had spoken with the new owners and they are receptive to the location of the 25 mgd facility. It is a good location for an RO facility since it is located adjacent to large distribution lines. It is very similar to the Tampa Bay project. He stated that various other sites were considered, but not selected.for various reasons. He stated that the 42 inch transmission line would cross the Laguna Madre which is expected to be completed by 2008. The City will install a 36 inch transmission line along Park Road 22 to an existing pump station. An elevated storage tank will placed in the Padre Island area. Mr. Garana stated that the aquifer storage and recovery(ASR), with 500 million gallon storage, would also be located in the Padre Island area. Capt. Hinger asked where that water would come from. Mr. Garana stated that the O. N. Stevens Water Treatment Plant (ONSWTP) has excess treatment capacity during winter months. He explained that during summer months, treatment capacity ranges as high as 110 mgd verses winter treatment capacity that drops to 65 to 70 mgd. He stated that production would be increased at the ONSWTP during winter months and inject the drinking water into the Chicot underground aquifer storage. During the winter months, the City will,be using the excess capacity of the water treatment plant and allow us the ability to provide a larger amount of ground water storage to deliver water to Padre Island and Port Aransas, which is rapidly growing. There are plans currently underway at Padre Island to utilize ASR that will help to provide water to that 2 community. Task 2: Treatment Disposal Water Quality Issues for Bay Water Mr. Garana stated that there were various issues in developing the desalination project at the Barney Davis plant, including red tide, total organic carbon, thermal variations, etc. Mr. Garana stated that the next step would be to conduct pilot testing,which the City was not willing to take on by itself. He stated that the next step would be to examine the Lon Hill Plant and would be dependent on the actions of the State legislature. Funding set aside for the Padre Island desalination facility allows the City to get the actual data. By product management remains an issue in that the City aims to produce 25 million gallons of water as part of a 35,000 mg/I feed stock; with the byproduct discharge at about 70,000 mg/L TDS. He stated that the local bays of freshwater are limited and City must be careful to enhance • freshwater inflowswith wastewater treatment effluent. He reported that by-product management would be significant. In order to get rid of the by-product, it could cost up to $2.2 billion for ponds and evaporation and $230 million for concentrators and crystallizers. Deep well injection of 25 wells is expected to cost $2 million a piece. He stated that the consultant recommended finding someone in the area who could use the raw materials. Although, there is concern that the brine discharge may not be of the desired quality. If the brine discharge is sold, there must be reliable source. Mr. Garana stated that there would also be an offshore discharge. He reported that the City has a lot data from working in Padre Island project. There will be large volumes of water that needs to be blended. He stated that blending includes feed stock because there has to be a sea water extraction for 25 mgd plant to blend witha groundwater extraction of more than 10 mgd, with 10 to 20,000 mg/L TDS. There is a concern for potential subsidence when drawing groundwater. There is no record of trace metals in the groundwater. - Task 3: Source-water blending - Mr. Garana stated that many lessons were learned from other sites such as Tampa Bay, specifically the importance to pretreatment. Tampa Bay facility may be taken over by a municipality. At Tampa, the groundwater is not viable. All water treatment processes, including reverse osmosis, have a pretreatment, post-treatment and process component. He stated that dirty water is never placed on top of the filters at the Stevens plant; otherwise, the pretreatment process is extensive in preparing the water for filtration. Task 4: Partnerships There are issues of ownership.. There is a possibility for private — public partnerships and potential customers enlisted as partners. Task 5:Water Transfers Mr. Garana stated that a list of large water users from regional plans would need to be developed. He reported that some of the City's current water users are looking at the viability of groundwater. He stated that the City of Corpus Christi has water assured; however, if we are going to be the customers,whatever happens to the water that is produced, the unit cost of the water at the plant must be,transparent to the City's water customers. We cannot deliver water to Padre Island and Port Aransas and expect the City's water customers to pay more. The city will update estimated cost. Task 6: Power Sources The Barney Davis Plant was sold to Topaz Power, who is not a retailer and cannot sell power to Corpus Christi. Power costs.are estimated at $0.065/kHz. Mr. Garana stated that Capt. Hinger had previously mentioned the opportunity to use wind power. Mr. Garana stated that wind power provided an opportunity for potential cost reduction. Conventional power that costs less than $0.065 may make wind power noncompetitive. Mrs. Serrato stated that research concluded that the sporadic nature of coastal winds in the area could be alleviated by increasing the height of the pipe to allow continuous wind power propeller rotation. Mr. Garana stated that there were other issues along the Coast. Mr. Castaneda stated that there were environmental issues such as migratory birds. Mr. Garana stated that Ft. Stockton has numerous wind power generators. 3 There is a concern on the reliability of wind power, which must be added into the project cost to have alternate power available: Task 7: Project Funding and Structure Alternative project delivery methods were summarized for City review. A design /build/own/operate/transfer process was considered. There are potential cost savings for alternative delivery methods which may be within the 10% to 20% range. The City wants a competitive bid process. Alternative delivery methods will require legislative intervention for public entities in Texas. The cost and schedule are developed based on design/bid/build conventional procurement. This type of structure does not allow you to effectuate certain savings by other alternative type of methods. Barney Davis has outfalls and intakes that must not have any impact to the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Fortunately, there is a volume of knowledge by Bill Mosley of Shiner Mosley, who is currently working on this project. He has studied the utilization of outfalls and intake structures in the Gulf of Mexico. A cost model was constructed by the consultant. Costs were analyzed for the selected process at the Barney Davis site; and the model was reviewed with City staff to be sure of accurate use of city data. The consultant developed comparative cost with and without desalination and solve for subsidies needed. Mr. Garana stated that the Tampa Bay project . received subsidies. The Tampa Bay project was one component of large overall projects involved in developing drinking water to the area; although that component fell to the way side because of operational issues. Mr. Garana stated that to this date, they have not brought Tampa Bay project as a fully operational plant. The City estimated $5 million annual revenue from surplus water sales and uses three variations at Barney Davis. Task 9: Report and Conclusions Mr. Garana stated that the project cost are estimated at approximately$197 million with offshore intake and discharge (2 miles out). This is the most reliable and most permittable of all options and the plant location provides the most benefit to the City of Corpus Christi. The cost will be approximately $1,300 per acre foot, which is much greater than what we currently pay for water. An annual subsidy of $25 million will be needed in addition to water sales revenue. Mr. Kent asked what the current cost of water is. Mr. Garana stated that the City currently pays $410 per acre foot. Mrs. Serrato asked if the$1,300 per acre foot included the $25 million subsidy. Mr. Massey stated the cost of $1,300 per acre foot did not include a subsidy. He stated that was based on the assumption that the City would receive a revenue stream on the sale of other water resources. Capt. Hinger asked if the cost of water was inclusive to water storage, security and other incidentals. She stated that TCEQ requires building a high-tech fence'around the Naval Air Station elevated storage tank. Mr. Garana stated that an alternative configuration using the existing intake and existing discharge point was looked at. He expressed that significant cost reductions could be realized; however, it is likely that there would be permit opposition. While there may be another configuration that would be less costly to construct, maintain and operate, sometimes the permit' opposition will make those not feasible. The cost of water is around $1,100 per acre foot with an annual subsidy of $18 million needed. Subsidies are large because the city has much less expensive water now. Mr. Massey stated that this has a smaller subsidy since it does not have an offshore pipeline, and basically tries to mix water through the cooling ponds and let it go into Oso Bay,' which is more challenging environmentally, but has lower construction cost. Mr. Massey stated that one of the disadvantages of constructing a pipeline until a later phase is that it limited the ability to expand. If you are able to get it permitted at 25 mgd, it is unlikely to get that changed significantly. Mrs. Serrato asked what would happen to Oso Bay when you don't have anything being put in from the Barney Davis, everyone is thinking that it will dry out and revert to nothing. Mr. Massey said that point was brought up at the Coastal Bend Bays Foundation workshop. Mrs. Serrato • stated that half the audience in the room was willing to get whatever theycould so that they could 4 get water flowing into the areas and the other half of the audience did not want desalinationby- products released into Oso Bay. Mr. Massey stated that circulation of water from the power plant and increases in flow would come from the Laguna Madre even though it brings water at higher saline content. Frequently, evaporation is high causing increases in saline content. • Mr. Garana stated copies of the large-scale desalination study were on file at the City Secretary's office, Central Library, Texas A&M University, Nueces county Library and the City Water Department web site. Written comments would be accepted until today. Mr. Garana stated that the report would be sent to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for review. There are three projects including Brownsville, Freeport and Corpus .Christi. Ultimately, the TWDB will review and go before the Texas State Legislature to decide on the future of a desalination facility in Texas. Mr. Kent asked about the revenue stream to operate the facility. Mr., Massey stated that if the City was able to market the sale of water, it could generate approximately $5 million in revenue. He clarified that the final projected revenue would be based on the location of the customer. More than likely, the City would use the 25 mgd and not draw 5 mgd from the reservoir or Lake Texana or Garwood. . Mr. Kent stated that water bought by the City from other places was on a take or pay basis. He stated that if the City pays for water from Lake Texana and Garwood Irrigation Company. The City would still incur the cost to develop 25 mgd. He wondered if the subsidy was large enough. He stated that the City currently does not have sufficient customers. Mr. Massey stated that the subsidy moves from a water sale and that 25 mgd figure becomes 30 mgd. It is an assumption that the City can receive $5 million in revenue; if we do not receive that revenue, then it just adds the$25 million to$18 million. Mrs. Serrato asked if the $5 million was net revenue after expenses. Mr. Massey stated that was • correct. The City would still have expenses for the desalination plant, contracts, and pipeline debt service; although, it would be revenue stream or like having another$5 million worth ofcustomers on the system. Mr. Massey stated that more than likely, the customer would not be located in the immediate area. The Texas Water Development Board is looking to satisfy shortfalls in other regions of the state. Mr. Kent asked how many gallons would be sold based on the $5 million revenue in a year. Mr. Massey stated that the water sold would be based on the combined cost of raw water. The water would be sold for at least that so that there is no loss of revenue. Mr. Massey stated that was a key point. He further stated that whether there is $5 million in revenue or $30 million in subsidies, it still needs to be explored. The state is scoping the market to determine if desalination can be made available at a viable market price without any significant subsidies. Mr. Massey stated that groundwater is being marketed; which undercuts the opportunity for desalination. Mrs. Serrato understood that Brownsville was looking to use brackish water;'although they may.not have any issues of disposal. Mr. Massey stated that they definitely don't. They have an existing brackish water plant that still has expansion capacity. The reason they do not have issues is because they start with brackish water. Bythe time they get done desalinating, they process no more salty water than what is found in their surface water. They can begin to discharge into a drainage canal that drains into the Laguna Madre and the Gulf of Mexico. As a result .they are treating their water at $1.50 per gallon and still have additional capacity. Another advantage is that it is a power company. The district generates power and they can sell water to themselves at cost. They did go in on the governor's desalination project as it had to be a sea water proposal. They are running the numbers and it is more expensive than $1.60 because the intake water is more saline. There are concerns that the water does not come down the Rio Grande. There is a lot of water used in the Valley for irrigation and the priority of water goes to municipal and industrial. If there was a shortage of water in the Valley, the irrigators would be left to deal with the shortage of water. If the Valley increases the cost of water due to desalination, residents will not be willing to pay higher rates so that irrigators can use the cheaper water. Mr. Massey stated that there was a different set of politics to deal with in the Valley. Mr. Massey spoke about the need for_water in Mexico. He stated that since they have a brackish plant now that can be operated at a fraction of the cost and expanded to treat an additional 10,000 5 • million gallons, they would not have a need to build a desalination facility. The State must deal with the decision. They may be able to get cheaper desalt water in Brownsville, but there may not have an obvious place to use. Mr. Massey stated that Corpus Christi can produce water and use it and save our other water, which is more flexible to the State. Mrs. Serrato stated that there is an economic impact of not having the water available for irrigators. The border counties in Texas have exceeded the border growth in California. She stated that there is a domino affect of not having agricultural water savings. Both agreed that the issue was quiet complicated. Mrs. Serrato asked if the staff wanted the committee to make a recommendation. She expressed that it was something worth pursuing once thereport is submitted to the Texas Water Development Board. She hoped the committee would be supportive. Mr. Massey stated that the City Council would be briefed on the final report, which would occur after public comments and after the report was examined by TWDB expert teams. The Council's attitude is to take advantage of anything that we can. The final decision will be made if they remain active options. Mr. Kent asked Mr. Massey if he thought it was feasible for the Water Department to spend money on this project, even if the State gives it to the City. Mr. Massey stated that it was not feasible for the City to develop a desalination facility unless the City develops less expensive • water. Mr. Massey stated that the Mayor wanted-to find more objective information in desalt to purge any subjective arguments. The City has evaluated the facts and the numbers remain the same. Mr. Massey stated that technology has not advanced enough to offer a great price break.. Mr. Castaneda stated that the TWDB would give the City an additional 30 days to the end of October to submit the report. Mr. Massey stated that TWDB would give the City 30 days after they submit their comments back to us to submit the final report. Mr. Massey stated that he was unsure that it would happen. Further discussion with the TWDB will occur near November or December timeframe. Item III. Update on the State Water Conservation Implementation Task Force Best Management Practices Mrs. Serrato stated that the Regional Water Planning Group (RWPG) met last week and one of the items discussed was the Best Management Practices developed by the Texas Water Development Board Water Conservation Implementation Task Force. She stated that originally, the committee considered recommending 125 gallons per capita/day(gpcd). After much discuss the Task Force decided to utilize a figure of 140 gpcd. Mr. Garana stated that Corpus Christi has 165 gpcd. Mrs. Serrato stated that the RWPG made a recommendation to include in the plan submitted to the State. She stated that it was decided that it would be best to try to address all the entities listed in the information from the TWDB. She stated that there were three different categories. There were cities and entities that did not have a shortage over the next 50 year planning period or to year 2060 that were slightly below or slightly above the recommended 140 gpcd. The RWPG decided that those cities/entities should be encouraged to conserve water, regardless of their per capita water use. She reported that some cities showed shortages that were below 140 gpcd and some were above 140 gpcd and the RWPG specified a recommendation. The State recommended a 15%water reduction by year 2060. She stated that the RWPG recommended that cities/entities work toward a conservation goal of 140 gpcd and to utilize BMPs as developed by the Task Force. She stated that the entities would be contacted to see if there are any other types of management practices that they feel will enable them to reach the goal of 140 gpcd. She stated that the only hook revolved around an entity seeking TWDB funding for conservation measures must comply with the RWPG plan. She stated that it took a while to come to those conclusions. She expressed hope that the region comply with thegoalof 140 gpcd. Mrs. Stockseth stated that Mrs. Serrato had done very well to present the RWPG motion. Mrs. Serrato was unsure if the Water.Conservation Advisory Committee would have anything to look at in the future. She stated that Corpus Christi is not showing a shortage of water supply, but is being encouraged to show water savings. Mrs. Coleman asked who is required to comply. • Mrs. Serrato stated that the TWDB Best Management Practices are voluntary; the RWPG will have to review gpcd every five years. Item IV. Report on Joint Meeting between South Central Texas (Region L) and Coastal Bend (Region N) 6 Mrs. Serrato reported on the joint meeting that was held with RWPG Region L (San Antonio)and Region N committee members. She stated that there was a local newspaper article that read "San Antonio Wants Corpus Christi Water". She stated that the newspaper article did injustice to the meeting. She further stated that the meeting was an exchange of information with regards to the overlap of groundwater resources., The groups discussed groundwater resources being considered by the.San Patricio Municipal Water District. Mrs. Serrato stated that there is very little overlap, but both regions will hold future meetings in order to stay informed. Mrs. Serrato asked Mr. Garana if he saw the meetings in the same way. Mr. Garana stated that the committee members mingled. Some of the quotes in the newspaper article came from an environmental interest. Mrs. Serrato stated that the discussions were conceptual and no contracts or agreements have been drawn up. IV. New or Old Business Mrs. Serrato called on City staff to discuss the results of the City meeting with LCRA. Mr. Massey stated that the intent of the meeting was to bring the two governing bodies together. Just like San Antonio, the City Council wants to sit down with the San Antonio city council to see what the intent of the discussions may be. He stated that LCRA has been very cooperative to allow the City to gather water samples to determine the water quality that would be drawn from Garwood Irrigation Company. LCRA wants to be involved in the City's operation plan when it begins to draw water from Garwood. The City Council wants to ensure that we look after its own interest. Mr. Massey reported that TCEQ approved San Marcus request for a bed and bank permit. The environmentalist protested and the court rejected the permit. He stated that there are many issues, such as the legislature authorizing TCEQ to issue such a permit. He stated that the City of Corpus Christi should have filed a petition against San Marcus; however, it does not reside within the Nueces River Basin. Another key difference is that San Marcus uses a lot ground water. Their argument is that we are putting water in the river that is not surface water and therefore, San Marcus ought to retain possession of it. As opposed to Austin, who buys its water from LCRA, which is a diversion of surface water; and therefore under the state rules, water is returned back to the river and goes back to state ownership. Mr. Massey stated that it was very technical, in that other basins such as Houston put water back into the Trinity River, which originates in the Dallas area. If Dallas and Fort Worth claim ownership to return flows, it would have an affect on Houston. Mr. Massey stated that a presentation was given to the City Council on the Nueces River Basin Study. Mr. Kent requested a presentation on the current water distribution system be placed on the next meeting. The next meeting was set for Thursday, December 16, 2004. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 7