HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1988, 2 - (2) ASE )6 AGENDA
RECEIVED DATE MAY to 8080 TEM # ;2
MAY tv- Lfor/�Z)/ oLf/z
91988 pTn
C tY 01 San Lu,s ftspo Dennis W.• Tewes ,(!ef
Ccmm�niryDa,cioPmert ,` v�f�,
1690 Cordova Driv /"�
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
B. f7 � cd
City of San Luis Obispo
We attended the City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 1988, specifically to
comment on the Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) for the Draft Water
Allocation Regulations; •however, time ran out before it could be discussed.
Therefore, I will try to put my comments in writing for the City Council's
consideration.
First, I would like to provide some thoughts on water conservation/alternatives
as discussed by the Council Tuesday night.
1. From figures provided in your E.I.R. , San Luis Obispo uses an average
of 7,720,000 gallons of water per day (page 29 - 8,650 AFY) . Residential
use is 61% of consumption (page 18) and outside use is 42% of that
(Appendix D, Paragraph H) ; then 26% of all water consumed in S.L.O. is
for landscaping and other outside uses. This amounts to approximately
2,000,000 gallons per day. A savings of only 1% (25% versus 26%)
represents 77,000 gallons per day, so you can see it would mount quickly.
Now, several people addressed this at the Council meeting, odd and even
watering days, sprinklers aimed in the proper direction, etc. But no
one addressed not watering during the day when the sun and the wind cause
unnecessary evaporation. Why not limit whatever landscape watering that
is allowed, to nighttime only.
In addition, we have excellent experts in agriculture and irrigation at
Cal Poly, why not consult with them for watering durations (i.e. are
two 5 minute durations better than one 15 minute duration) , best times of
the day for watering, durations between watering (i.e. 2 days, 3 days,
whatever) , etc.
2. All restaurants in S.L.O. should discontinue serving water unless
specifically requested.
3. Ornamental fountains and drinking fountains should be shut off.
4. Other cities in California have implemented water saving ideas. Ask
them which are most effective and, if they apply to our city, either
implement them or keep them in reserve for possible additional (future)
savings.
Next-,::.I would like to address your E.I.R. which, by the way, was well written
and informative. However, as I read the E.I.R. , questions arose that were not
covered, and in order to properly integrate all the facts and data and arrive
at the correct conclusion, these questions should be answered.
1. Accuracy of present reservoirs capacity and S.A.Y. require that siltation
be addressed, or if soundings were taken recently, when were they.
Confidence in our water supply estimates must be established and then
Page 2
the top bullet item listed on page 38 could be eliminated.
2. Our present water treatment facility was sized for a certain capacity--
what is it and what is our current load on it? Can it handle the
increased usage:'addressed in the E.I.R. without capital improvements?
Will existing transmission lines from the reservoirs and the distribution
lines from the water treatment facility handle water increase? If capital
improvements are required, what is their estimated costs and how will the
revenue be covered (i.e. will the city pay for them out of their increased
fiscal revenues from additional housing/employment?) The second bullet
item, page 37, states "most costs to develop new supplies would be borne
by new development" but "operations and maintenance costs will be borne
by all customers."
3. Adjust your assumptions to account for present drought conditions. Page
37, bottom bullet states "There will be no severe drought conditions
between 1988 and 1997."
4. Total projected water use for May 1, 1988, page 29, is 8,650 AFY.
Preliminary figures should be available now for comparison to see if
we're on, over or under projected usage. As 8,650 AFY is the starting
point for your various scenario projections, it's important to verify
it's accuracy. Then, too, while construction has been active, what with
new motels, the new mall and all the new housing; is it still bearing
out your projected use of 250 AFY as shown on page 29.
5. Based on my calculations using figures from the E.I.R. , 8,650 AFY current
usage (page 29) equates to an average of 7,720,000 gallons per day, every
day of the year. Subtraction of outside residential water use for
landscaping, etc . , 2,000,000 gallons per day, leaves us with 5,720,000
gallons per day. Estimated additional outside water usage for commercial,
hotels/motels, etc. is another 10% of our total consumption, leaving us
with approximately 5,000,000 gallons per day of waste water that our
sewage treatment facility must process. As our sewage treatment facility
is sized for processing 5,000,000 gallons per day then it only stands to
reason--increasing our water supply/consumption will directly affect
capital improvements at our sewage treatment plant.
Once again, will the city pay for the necessary increase in sewage capacity
out of their increased fiscal revenues? (Same question as in item 2.)
I would appreciate you making the Council aware of these questions as well as
your responses. If I can be of any further value, please feel free to call on
me.
Respectfully,
A eo
De W. Tewes
Registered Professional Engineer
4-?F l/