Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Water Resources Advisory Committee - 06/26/2003 V_. . .::,.. ▪WATER nerwmNIsn•r •Club Of. Cerpus Chrisii WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11 :30 a.m. Thursday, June 26, 2003 City Hall — 1201 Leopard Street 'Basement Conference Room Minutes Members present included Chair Carola Serrato, Vice-chair Kimberly Stockseth, Lena Coleman, Capt. Paula Hinger, Herman Johnson, Bob Kent, Jon Kiggans*, Dr. Karen Rue, and Dr. Jane Stanford. City staff members present included Ron Massey, Eduardo Garana, Max Castaneda, Mucio Garza, Yolanda Marruffo, Susan Cable, and Rosie Cortez. Chairperson Serrato called the meeting to order at 11:40 a.m. Minutes of April 24, 2003. Dr. Stanton made a motion to approve the minutes and second was made by Capt. Hinger. The committee voted unanimously to accept the minutes of April 24, 2003 as presented. Presentation of Annual Water Quality Report (the desalination presentation was moved back due to Mr. Garana having a previous engagement and would come to meeting later) Mrs. Marruffo stated that the City distributed the 5th annual Drinking Water Quality Report to all area residents. The report complies with the USEPA Safe Drinking Act of 1996 providing consumers with "right to know" quality data of their drinking water. Approximately 114,000 copies were distributed at an average cost of 21 cents per customer. Mrs. Marruffo presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the contents of the report. The City's drinking water met the USEPA drinking water standards for 2002 with constituent levels measuring below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) She stated that if the constituent levels were higher than the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL), the City would be required to notify the public and take certain actions. Mrs. Marruffo stated the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) collects water samples from the City. The water quality results submitted by TCEQ to the City detected twenty regulated constituents in our drinking water; however none of them exceeded the USEPA maximum contaminant level. The maximum contaminant level is the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. MCLS are set as close to the maximum contaminant level goals as feasible using the best available treatment technology. The constituents are measured in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Mrs. Marruffo used the analogy of one part per million being equivalent to 1 SCANNFfl one packet of artificial sweetener sprinkled into 250 gallons of iced tea. And, one part per billion being equivalent to one packet of artificial sweetener sprinkled into 250,000 gallons of iced tea. For the constituent barium, the TCEQ found that the City's drinking water measured at 0.082 parts per million. The USEPA maximum contaminant level is 2 parts per million; therefore, Corpus Christi's drinking water satisfied the federal regulations for safe drinking water. Mrs. Marruffo reviewed the remaining constituents as well as the possible source of the constituent. Dr. Stanton asked if we had arsenic and whether there was any kind of reading on what the level is for arsenic. Mrs. Marruffo stated that no arsenic was found in the water this year. Dr. Stanton asked about the contaminants that are not regulated. Ms. Serrato explained that those numbers are in the process of being evaluated by the USEPA. The arsenic level was changed to 10 and was just upheld. Ms. Marruffo stated that arsenic was not detected in the City's drinking water this year. She stated that arsenic was detected in 1998, 1999 and 2001. Mrs. Marruffo provided a table identifying the history of the constituents found in the City's drinking water. Dr. Stanton asked if they are regulated. Mrs. Marrufffo stated that EPA has primary and secondary regulations for different constituents. The secondary regulations help USEPA to monitor those constituents with a likelihood of regulating them in the future. The secondary constituents do not have any health hazards. It is simply a unit of detection. Mrs. Serrato stated that disinfection by- products are in the process of being promulgated and the list of regulated constituents is going to get longer and longer as USEPA goes through the process. Mr. Johnson asked if fluoride was added to the water. Mr. Garza stated that the City does add chemicals to the water. He stated that TCEQ collects water samples four times a year and submit the analysis to the City. He stated that the City tries to keep fluoride at a level of .8 ppm. Dr. Stanton asked if it was good that it was so low or should it be higher. Capt. Hinger stated that it is possible to get too much fluoride, which is bad for the teeth. Dr. Rue asked if there were any constituents in our water that have high concentrations. Mrs. Marruffo stated that the TCEQ tests for up to 97 constituents. The results shown in the 2002 water quality results identified all of the detectable constituents,as reported to the City by TCEQ. Capt. Hinger asked about coliform and noted that it showed it is present and appears that you have a presence. Mrs. Marruffo stated that coliform was found in a water sample. A resample of the same location came back negative. Mr. Massey stated every incident of fecal coliform found in a system must be reported. He stated that two studies were recently done by Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi on the impacts of storm water and the flushing effect and how the presence of bacteria surges after a rain event. Prior to the study, the assumption was that fecal deposits from cats and dogs were the primary reason for storm water contamination. From Bayfront and Cayo del Oso samples it was determined that more than 50% of the 2 a a contamination comes from birds, 8% from humans, 4% from cats and 4% from dogs. He stated that this is nature— it is not new. **John Kiggans arrived at 12:00 pm. Ms. Serrato stated that the City has a water shed protection system in place to avoid the introduction of contaminants into the water supply. There are certain regulations and land use control. Mr. Massey gave another example of technological advancement. He cited the study done recently on heavy metals in the ship channel — when they went to a more sophisticated method, they found out that not only was the simpler test wrong, but the levels we have are low. Yet, common feeling is that our bay is polluted. Dr. Stanford stated that the common perception of runoff of ranch lands contributes to pollution because of the chemicals that are used. Mr. Massey stated that there is a problem re: feed lots, etc. Studies in our region indicate more pollutants come off the roads rather than the agricultural lands. Mr. Johnson stated that the pollutants mostly come from filtration, infiltration, and percolation of water through the soils. Mr. Massey stated that ground water, ultimately percolates through the ground. The majority of recharged ground water comes from rainfall, and the problem is what the rainwater might pick up in the way of pollutants and that filters to the ground. In come cases, the ground is every effective at removing those types of pollutants. One of those is fecal coliform. Ms. Serrato stated that it often depends on the connections, depth of wells, how properly it was drilled and the casing and maintaining of the casing. If you have a well that was properly drilled, but if you don't maintain that casing inferior water from other water bearing soils will begin migrating to the aquifer. It is all about wellhead protection and the state and federal government have programs that help protect water. Mr. Massey stated that is why the City does the household hazardous waste so that they can be properly disposed. Ms. Serrato stated that if the City had had a second negative reading on the fecal coliform, they would have to post and publish a notification. Mr. Massey explained that is why chlorine is added to the water as a disinfectant. Capt. Hinger stated that the disinfectant is boosted in the water at the Naval Air Station and they have more stringent regulations. That is why they did not have any problems when the water break occurred. Mr. Massey stated it is impossible to not get any positives for lead and what you have to do is meet 98 percentile. The presence of lead should not alarm the public, instead by too many occurrences. Lead is picked up from the components used in the plumbing. Lead can be found in the solder used on copper pipes. Dr. Stanford asked if we still have any neighborhoods that have lead in their home plumbing. Mr. Massey stated that it was hard to tell how much due to some people doing their own plumbing, and sometimes lead is reintroduced into the system by 3 buying or using plumbing fixtures made outside of the U.S. where you don't have the same control. Mrs. Serrato stated that the lead and copper are introduced from the plumbing fixtures from the reaction with corrosive water. Therefore, water systems control the pH. Often problems occur with water sitting overnight. Mr. Massey stated there was not enough awareness, but that is the purpose of having reports like this one. The samples are taken where water has not been used, especially overnight, Dr. Stanford asked if there had ever been an advisory about a certain neighborhood having lead, etc. Ms. Serrato stated that the way the water supply corporations managed by STWA collection samples is by a questionnaire that would target susceptible homes and send them bottles with, instructions to take samples of the water. Then they would send the samples to Austin and when results are in, they would send the residents a copy of the results. Dr. Stanford stated my home might be the actual contaminant. Mr. Kiggans stated that you could still buy solder that has lead. Mr. Johnson stated that most people are not really interested in testing water. His business had purchased some water testing kits and only a few had been sold. Dr. Stanford asked if the average consumer has knowledge about water testing. Her concern was that some people might not be aware that they have lead, etc. and that there is something out there that they can use to test. Mr. Massey stated that when the EPA first required this testing in mid 90's, people were not aware. If there is concern among our advisory panel that we need to periodically bring this to people's attention he suggested that the staff could develop a public service announcement and include the topic in next year's annual report with information about the possible presence of lead and that tap water is not generally carrying lead. One of the purposes of this type of group is to share what we know. Dr. Stanford made a motion to have the City include additional information about the possible presence of lead in water, focused on susceptible residences. Motion was seconded. Ms. Serrato reiterated that if a city exhibited signs of having lead adjustments could be made to correct the problem. Ms. Coleman stated that she is concerned about the people living in old houses and could easily get it taken care of if they were aware, and how do you get this information out without creating a panic. Mr. Massey stated that information should be provided on existing conditions so a special notice is not being created such as with the annual water quality report. Mr. Garana stated that when the USEPA issued the Lead and Copper Rule, there was extensive publicity to the point that City had special training sessions at the Water Department and kept staff there after hours to answer questions from the public that we were expecting. There were only two calls received. Mr. Massey stated that the staff could prepare information about how lead gets into drinking water and incorporate it into the annual water quality report. Mrs. Serrato suggested an amendment to the motion that there be a portion in a box in the next 4 confidence report and that next year prior to the mail out that the committee be allowed to review it. Lena Coleman seconded the motion on the revised amendment. Motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Marruffo stated that she would try to prepare something in advance so the committee could look at it in plenty of time. Mr. Kent noted a typographic error in the coliform constituent, third column that should read less than 5%. Mr. Garana stated that he would check on that and have it corrected. (The USEPA maximum contaminant level for coliform reads "presence of coliform bacteria in 5% or more of the monthly samples". The 2002 WQR is written as "presence of coliform bacteria in >5% of monthly samples".) Ms. Coleman stated that she realizes we are within the guidelines, but asked if anyone has come up with a total amount or the cumulative impact that the constituents had on the health of our citizens. Mr. Massey stated that for the average person this is considered to be safe ranges. Mr. Garana stated that he has never come across that type of research. Mr. Kent stated that it would take a big ecological study to come up with the answer. Mrs. Serrato stated that during her involvement as a member of the Small Community Advisory Committee with USEPA, one of the questions was how do you come up with what is safe for our citizens. How many cases of cancer will occur as a result of varying exposure to different constituents? The EPA's calculations are based on what is a reasonable exposure weighed against the cost of removal. She gave the example of the cost for taking arsenic out of the water would probably cost more than $50 per month. Mrs. Coleman stated that $50 a month per household would be okay and that she would pay it. Mrs. Serrato responded that for persons living on a limited income $50 per month could be considered an economic hardship. Capt. Hinger stated that there are so many inexpensive in-home systems that can be hooked up. Mr. Garana stated that most of those systems are good if they are properly maintained. Mr. Massey stated that people generally concerned about tap water end up drinking bottled water, which is not tested or regulated by USEPA. Ms. Marruffo stated that a public meeting would be held on June 26 to review the contents of the annual water quality report. Ms. Cable made a presentation on the City's Water Department new web site. Dr. Rue made a motion that the Water Quality presentation be placed on the website. Kimberly Stockseth seconded the motion and the motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Cable stated that the city's website receives nearly 100,000 hits a day as of May 2003. Ms. Cable reviewed the different items that are on the website. She suggested that people go to the site, evaluate it, and see what could be changed. She stated that the Water Department would be posting the meeting date and minutes of the Water Advisory Committee. She stated that there are archives on the site, and also a live cam on the arena project right now. She asked that the committee members provide comments, if needed. Presentation on the Padre Island Desalination Plant Feasibility Analysis and Siting Plan Mrs. Serrato asked about the Council action relating to desalination at yesterday's 5 Council meeting. Mr. Massey stated that the staff would be going back to the Council with a contract to conduct groundwater analysis plus permitting, and then treatment of water. Mr. Kiggans asked if anyone had calculated costs because he's heard that this water would be expensive water and the costs would be passed on to consumers. He asked how it would affect people's water rates and keeps seeing costs for developing a desalination plant, but not the cost of a new pipeline. He asked if someone was doing a comparison. Mr. Massey stated that the City has not updated the numbers on a pipeline. Some of the other things being developed are a new hydraulic model of the whole system that would allow comparisons on putting in a new pipeline, looking at pressure, and a combination of things. It also allows the City to examine ASR. Mr. Kiggans stated that it looked like the decision was being rushed and that not all the facts were in. Mr. Kiggans stated that there are a lot of water sources and some people think a desalination plant is very expensive and if that is true we need to find out. Mr. Massey stated that what the Council got out of the presentation was that the numbers are high for desalination and therefore, you have to be very deliberate in your decision-making. There were some other good things that came out of it. The ASR has a enormous potential not only to support the concept of desalination on the Island, but it is the least expensive way to use desalination on Padre Island. ASR is also a way to take advantage of other water when it is available. As the City pilots the ASR concept on Padre Island, it can meet the most critical need, because it will provide a virtually unlimited reservoir on Padre Island. Whenever you have water available in the system, you can bank it on the Island and then just pump it out of the ground when demand peaks. Mrs. Serrato stated then the question comes, can the ASR could be done with a new pipeline, but without a desalination plant, and that the answer is "yes". Mr. Massey stated we purposely went back to the Council — basically saying these are independent components. There are some improvements still that can be made to the system on the Island. There are opportunities for ASR not only on the Island, but, also to be duplicated in other places in the system. There is still more information needed on desalination before you make any decisions, specifically to start treating it and see if the assumptions that were made in the preliminary will prove correct. He stated that we are still investing on design right now. We are not investing in anything that is not needed right now. Mrs. Serrato stated that the committee would be interested to see what size pipeline could be used for ASR and still be able to meet the needs without a desalination plant. Mr. Massey stated that the consultants would not be able to determine that information, as a good dynamic model is needed. Mr. Kiggans stated that basically it looks like ASR is good no matter what and it goes on its own path, but that he could not go with desalination versus another alternative unless he knew the other alternatives. Mr. Massey stated that ASR goes no matter what. He stated that an ASR gives you the potential to take advantage of other water like Texana water. We are ready to go to the Council with another contract for additional interruptible water, for 7,500 acre feet, which is more than the last contract of 4,500 acre feet. This would bring the total interruptible water from Lake Texana to nearly 54,000 acre-feet of water. He stated 6 • that the water would have to be taken from Lake Texana when demand is down. But if you have an unlimited storage location (ASR), you can bring all the water that you can get your hands on. Dr. Stanford asked what ASR stood for. Mr. Massey responded that it stood for aquifer storage and recovery, which is basically using a natural underground feature to store water that has been treated in what amounts to as an natural underground storage tank. Dr. Stanford asked if the City has done a study on this and asked why the State thinks it is a good idea. Mr. Massey stated that the Council supports the idea of ASR. The one water source that we have that is unlimited and why aren't we going after that. Mr. Massey stated that inexpensive water is a good investment and we can make use of it. Ms. Serrato asked about the cost of the item going to the Council. Mr. Massey stated approximately $1 million, which is presently included in next year's Capital Improvement Program. Mrs. Serrato asked if the City was still looking at a 5% increase in the treated water. Mr. Massey stated that the figure was in the budget. A brochure of the overview of the project was passed out to the committee members. Mr. Massey stated that the brochure showed the summary presented at the Council meeting. The presentation basically stated that the desalination facility could be sited on the Island with the ability to inject the bi-product back in the ground. Mrs. Serrato asked if another 24" water line was needed, and whether the staff determined if a 24" or 36" line was needed. Mr. Massey stated that the issue would have to be determined; however, the consultants were not at this segment of the project. He stated that the existing 24" line would need to be replaced at some point and that a plan was needed for that project. Mr. Massey stated that what we did know was what kind of volume that we can count on moving to the Island with that 24" water line. Mr. Massey stated that depending on how much water supply and demand is created on the Island, the Island could outgrow a 24" line. Mr. Massey stated that the County Park (on the other side of the Causeway) was being considered as a suitable location for the reverse osmosis (RO) facility. The well field for the source water would be in the area around Packery Channel, and the ASR location would be the area going out on Park 22 towards the National Seashore by Padre Balli Park. An alternate source for ASR would be in the Mustang Island area and an alternate site for the desalination plant would be by the NCWID #4 water tank. The City is planning to develop up to 3 million gallons a day capacity with 1 million gallon a day RO facility and 2 million gallons a day from ASR. The initial configuration would allow the City flexibility to respond to demand increases by expanding either the ASR or RO facilities. As average daily demands increase, RO capacity and the Chicot source water supply would be expanded, but other project components would not require expansion until RO capacities exceed 5mgd. This configuration would provide sufficient capacity to support existing average day demand of 2.4 mgd and would be able to support nearly 80 percent of current estimated maximum day demands in case of an outage of the existing 24-inch pipeline. The total estimated project cost is $23.2 million. He stated that by 2005 demand on the Island is expected to exceed the capabilities to • deliver. Historical peak demand indicates that demand could exceed supply on some days by 2004-2005. Dr. Stanford asked about the projections for Packery Channel. Mrs. Serrato asked if anything would be put into the component such as an aggressive site-specific conservation program. He stated that no one had looked at this. He stated that the demand also included the City of Port Aransas. He stated that we needed to discuss with them on how much water they draw by that process versus water taken from San Patricio Municipal Water District. Mr. Massey expressed concern for the Island residents if a leak occurred on the island and that the City was looking to make the most cost effective decision right now. Mrs. Serrato stated that she hated to see $750,000 spent so that the consultants could tell the City that another pipeline was needed. Mr. Massey stated that the City recognized the need to replace the existing line. The consultant would be involved in the permitting process for a new pipeline. Mr. Massey stated that there is also the Governor's desalination initiative that we don't know where it's going. There is going to be an opportunity to get some money from the State to do some testing, or some additional analysis for the Governor's project. The pipeline would be even more significant because of the ability to move the water off the Island. Mr. Massey stated that desalination is not going away and if the City is not aggressive to pursue the opportunity, the chance may be lost. He emphasized that the City's primary focus was providing adequate service to the Island, meeting their water demands, and finding alternative water sources to ensure that there are no problems on the Island. Mr. Massey stated that because desalination could provide 1 million gallon a day, you lose 1 million gallon. However, if we lost the pipeline, we would lose 5 million gallons. Under that scenario, you need the pipeline before you need the desalination. Mr. Kiggans asked how many gallons of water were treated daily. Mr. Garana stated that the City produces, on average, 75 to 80 million gallons per day. Mrs. Serrato asked about the impact to water users if the City decided to spread the cost. Mr. Massey stated that everybody wants to know what the water cost for treated water is per thousand gallons. Mr. Kiggans asked the cost for treated water. Mr. Garana stated today's cost of water is $1.80/$1.90 per 1,000 gallons. Mr. Massey stated that the ASR decisions could move independently of any desalination decision. He reported multiple projects would take place such as repairs to the pump stations, groundwater testing, reverse osmosis track, ASR track, and permitting track. The City would develop costs associated with the pipeline and suggest changes. Mrs. Serrato asked if any thought had been given to two pipelines as had been looked at one time on the Mary Rhodes Pipeline. Mr. Massey stated that we were not there yet, and that was something to consider in the preliminary phase. As soon as the permitting process begins at the Laguna Madre, the City would initiate the permitting action to cross the Channel. The City is currently in the longest part of the process. Mrs. Serrato asked if they would also begin the inspection of the Padre Island Pumping Station improvements. He stated that would occur later and that our objective would be to have the improvements in place before Summer 2004 to increase our capability before peak season. Mrs. Serrato asked if the improvements would be needed whether we had a desalination project or not. Mr. Massey stated that those improvements are needed. The City would install ASR wells in Spring 2004 so that construction could begin on the RO unit by June 2004. The City would hopefully put 8 t water in the ground by November 2004 and possibly begin to draw in 2005. Construction of an RO facility, from design to construction, takes approximately 30 months, or by December 2006, which is a year later than earlier discussed. The timeline does not include the installation of a new pipeline. The staff would need to • obtain information on pipeline cost and timeline. Mr. Massey stated that he was satisfied with information presented to the City Council and that we have not made any more commitments. Mrs. Serrato asked how much had been spent. Mr. Massey stated that actual costs are the pumping and soil testing. He stated that they might put in a smaller casing, etc. as much of the money is tied up. He stated that they would have to do testing to demonstrate that what you are proposing is ok. He stated that the Council was very skeptical when we brought the contract. However, they now realize how much it will cost with regards to a pipeline and desalination just as we talked about in 1996. Dr. Stanford asked if a contract had been issued and if it could give the Governor an incentive to do the project here. Mr. Massey stated that he didn't think that the State knew how they were going to break down the money. The Governor's initiative may provide money for additional studies. No one has come up with any money for actual construction. The Governor has not indicted that he has any money available and the City is not ready to sign up for a desalination plant. Mrs. Serrato asked the Committee if they wanted to meet after the City Council meeting in July. One of the subjects that the Committee would like to talk about is the recent water line break. She asked Mrs. Marruffo to e-mail everyone to get a preferred meeting date. With no further business the meeting was adjourned. 9