HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/1999, 1 - WATER SUPPLY STUDY SESSION Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 2
Potential projects to meet the City's identified water needs which are not currently being pursued
include increased use of groundwater, desalination, and the State Water Project. Staff believes
that increased use of groundwater may be a viable alternative which should be further evaluated.
During the next year, an analysis of the potential increase in safe annual yield through a
coordinated operation with other City water supplies should be undertaken and treatment facility
siting and design require additional studies. While desalination is a viable technology, past
studies and analysis indicate that this alternative is much more expensive than the alternatives
which are currently being pursued, primarily due to desalination's high use of electricity. This
alternative is likely the last option the City would pursue should other alternatives fail to move
forward.
The final option, which is discussed in more detail in this report and in Attachment A, is the
State Water Project. The treatment and delivery facilities have already been constructed and
there is no additional capacity available for new participants. The State Water Project could
provide an alternative for developing a "reliability reserve" of 2,000 acre feet. Alternative
options are discussed in detail in Attachment A but have not been thoroughly evaluated. Based
on Council direction, the additional analysis and evaluation of the alternatives could be
undertaken by staff for fimue Council consideration. There was an advisory ballot measure
relative to the City's participation in the State Water Project which city residents voted not to
support participation in the State Water Project. Following this advisory measure, the Council
decided to participate in the project. This action was subsequently overturned by a referendum
which was placed on the November 1992 ballot. If the Council chose to pursue State Water as
an option, although not strictly required, the issue should be presented to the residents as a ballot
measure.
The current Council strategy for acquiring additional water resources is to aggressively pursue
the Water Reuse Project since this project is likely the first project that can be completed to
provide additional water resources to the city. The current strategy for the Nacimiento and
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Projects is to pursue these projects on a parallel track. With the
delay in the Nacimiento Project schedule for certification of the environmental impact report and
the uncertainty of project participant's support, staff recommends aggressively proceeding with
the additional studies and work relative to the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project which must
be completed prior to a final decision to proceed. This will position the City to move forward
quickly with the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project should the Nacimiento Pipeline Project fail
to move forward in the future and is necessary to ensure protection of the City's water rights to
the expanded capacity of the reservoir.
The City should continue to pursue the Water Reuse, Nacimiento Pipeline and Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Projects to meet the additional water supplies as identified in the Water Management
Element to the General Plan and continue to study and evaluate alternatives as new information
develops.
1-2
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 3
DISCUSSION
Introduction
This report was developed to discuss the City's direction relative to water supply projects and the
identified needs for additional water resources. Based on the adopted General Plan build-out and
policies contained within the Water Management Element to the General Plan, the City of San
Luis Obispo needs to develop an additional 3,861 acre feet per year (afy) to fulfill the goals
identified in the plans. The components which make up the 3,861 afy figure are; 1.) a 2,000 afy
reliability reserve, 2.) 500 afy to offset losses at Whale Rock and Salinas Reservoirs due to
siltation,and 3.) 1,361 afy to meet population projections at full build-out.
To meet these identified supplemental water needs, the City is pursuing three water supply
projects: the Water Reuse Project, the Nacimiento Pipeline Project, and the Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project. The following sections will discuss the history, status and significant steps
remaining in the process to complete each of the water supply alternatives. The politics and
policies which are an integral part of water supply development will also be briefly discussed.
There are other potential water supply alternatives which are not currently being actively pursued
by the City which could prove to be viable options in the future. Alternatives such as increasing
the use of groundwater, desalination or the State Water Project will be discussed in more detail in
the"Alternative projects Not Currently Being Pursued"section of this report.
The final section of the report will discuss any recommended changes to the City's water supply
development strategies and Council's direction and recommendations will be incorporated into
the Capital Improvement Plan request for each of these projects for the 1999/01 budget process.
Current Water Supply Resources
The City currently acquires water from three sources: Salinas Reservoir, Whale Rock Reservoir
and groundwater. The adopted combined safe annual yield from these three sources is 7,735 afy.
The Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs are operated in a coordinated manner which increases
the available safe annual yield from these two sources to a combined total of 7,235 afy. The
coordinated operation assumes that the majority of the water each year is provided from Salinas
Reservoir (which fills and spills every two or three years on the average) and Whale Rock
Reservoir is used as a backup, since it rarely spills. In addition to the surface water sources,
groundwater provides a small portion of the water to meet city-wide demand each year. An
additional 500 afy from groundwater resources has been adopted as the safe annual yield from
this source in the Water Management Element to the General Plan.
Water Available for Development
The policies contained in the Water Management Element to the General Plan establish the basis
for the determination of water availability for new development. The City has adopted a water
1-3
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 4
The policies contained in the Water Management Element to the General Plan establish the basis
for the determination of water availability for new development. The City has adopted a water
use factor of 145 gallons per. capita per day (gpcd) for projection of future supplemental water
needs and calculating water available for development. This adopted per capita use rate assumes
an ongoing conservation effort and also assumes that all bathroom facilities throughout the city
have been retrofitted with low flow toilets. Since all bathrooms have not been retrofitted, the
City requires that new development continue to retrofit existing facilities to offset twice the
amount of water that the new development is estimated to use. The City hit a high per capita
water use rate of approximately 182 gpcd in 1986 and 1987. During the drought, mandatory
conservation measures reduced water use to a low of 86 gpcd. Since the drought, the city has
seen an increase in water use as shown in the chart below, but has continued to keep water use
well below the 145 figure. Since the 145 figure is the maximum rate that can be allowed without
potential impacts to the availability of existing supplies and that needed for buildout, the city
should continue to encourage efficient water use and monitor per capita water use to ensure that
it remains below the 145 figure.
Per Capita Water Use
200 r� o0 00
cc 150 tV e` N
y A 100
0 50
U0
000 ono .000 Ch M M
Year
The determination of availability of water to serve new development is based on the projected
current water use calculated by multiplying the adopted per capita water use planning figure of
145 gpcd and the current estimated city population. This projected current water use is then
compared to the adopted safe annual yield from water resources available to the city and the
difference is the amount of water available for new development. Based on the 1998 population
and current adopted safe annual yield, there is currently 805 acre feet available as of 1998 for
new development. Development since 1998 has used 45 acre feet, leaving 760 acre feet available
for new development as shown in the table below. As can be seen in the table above, the City
retains a significant safety factor in that the "actual water use" is monitored very closely to
ensure that use remains well below the 145 gpcd figure used to determine water available for
allocation.
1-4
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 5
Table 1: Water Availability
Safe Annual Yield 7,735 acre feet
Present Water Demand 6,930 acre feet
(1998 population=42,670)
Water Available for Development 805 acre feet
(based on 1998 population)
Development since 1998 45 acre feet
Water Available for Development 760 acre feet
Policy 8.3 of the Water Management Element requires a reserve of water to serve a portion of the
new development within the City limits as of 1994. The policy states:
"One half of the water needed to serve intensification and infill (as identified in
Table 8.1) within the existing City limits as of July 1994, including the potential
water savings from replacing fixtures in the City (Section 9.1), will be reserved
for use as such development occurs."
This policy originally required reserve of sufficient water to serve all the infill and intensification
within the city. The policy was revised by Council several years after the original adoption of
this policy to allow a portion of the available water to be used for annexation areas. The policy
at this point is somewhat confusing and requires separate tracking and accounting of water for
new development within the 1994 City limits and the post 1994 annexation areas. In 1994, infill
and intensification within the existing City limits was estimated to require 602 acre feet of water.
The revised policy required the reserve of 301 acre feet for use within the 1994 city limits at that
time. Population estimates were revised by the State in 1995 which indicated a reduction in the
City population from the 1994 estimates. The population estimates are more accurately
estimated every five years, and the downward adjustment was likely the result of over estimating
of growth in the intervening years. The change in the population estimate and the application of
the 145 gpcd planning figure increased the available water for development. Based on the 1998
population figures, there is 805 acre feet available for new development. Development since
1998 has used approximately 45 acre feet (as shown in Table 1), leaving 760 acre feet available
to support new development. The Council discussed the policy relative to reserve of water for
infill and intensification, as well as other policies contained in the Water Management Element
of the General Plan in mid-1998. Based on these Council discussions, the interpretation of the
policy is that half of this available amount (380 acre feet) would be reserved for intensification
and infill within the 1994 city limits. Table 2 below shows the water reserved for intensification
and infill and the remaining amount needed for all project development within the 1994 city
limits.
1-5
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 6
Table 2: Water for Intensification and Infill
1994 Estimate for Water Needed for 602 acre feet
Intensification and Infill within 1994
City Limits
Development within 1994 City 218 acre feet
Limits since 1994
Amount Remaining for Development 384 acre feet
within 1994 City Limits
Available Water Reserved Based on 380 acre feet
Water Management Element Policy 8.3
Based on current projections at this time, Table 2 above indicates that there is currently sufficient
water reserved to serve all infill and intensification within the 1994 city limits. The adoption of
the policy to reserve water for infill and intensification was based on the concern that new
annexation areas would quickly use up all of the available water and areas within the existing
1994 city limits would be unable to develop. Completion of residential projects in the Edna-
Islay area and other development projects actually resulted in infill and intensification out pacing
the water needs of the new annexation areas.
Based on the water availability estimates in the tables above, the City currently has 380 acre feet
of water reserved for infill and intensification within the 1994 city limits which is approximately
the amount necessary to meet all development needs relative to the infill and intensification.
There is currently 380 acre feet available to serve new annexation areas outside the 1994 city
limits. Annexations to date are estimated to need 190 acre feet for planned development. Water
allocations are not reserved at the time of annexation. Water allocations are made at the time of
building permit issuance, following completion of the retrofitting of existing toilets as required
by Water Management Element Policy 8.2.C.
Additional Water Supply projects Currently Being pursued
The City has been pursuing three water supply projects for several years to meet the water supply
deficit identified in the Water Management Element to the General Plan. Water resource
development typically requires many years to successfully secure the necessary regulatory
approvals and comply with environmental review and documentation .required under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Each of the three water supply projects are in
various stages of the environmental review and regulatory approval processes. Each project has
different issues, concerns, and political constraints which must be addressed prior to initiating
construction and implementation of the project. The following sections will discuss each of
these projects and identify the progress to date and the steps and associated timelines necessary
to complete the projects.
1-6
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 7
Water Reuse Project
The City's Wastewater Treatment Plant, now referred to as the Water Reclamation Facility
(WRF), underwent a major upgrade in 1990. The final phase of the project was completed in
1994. Following the completion of the upgrade project, the Water Reclamation Facility now
produces a disinfected tertiary reclaimed water in order to meet the requirements of the NPDES
permit for discharge to San Luis Creek. This high level of treatment will allow the reclaimed
water to be reused for irrigation purposes and other non-potable applications.
State Water Resources Control Board Permit
In 1991, the City filed a request with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for a
change in the point of use and purpose of use of the treated effluent from the WRF. A number of
protests were filed by downstream property owners, as well as the Department of Fish and Game
and Central Coast Salmon Enhancement. The protests can be divided into two separate areas:
public trust issues and water rights. The SWRCB staff have determined that the downstream
water users have no legal right to the water discharged to the creek and can not legally require
the City to continue to discharge water to meet their water needs. The issue relative to public
trust (i.e. downstream biological habitat, steelhead, etc.) is still unresolved and pending a ruling
from the State Water Resources Control Board, however, staff is confident that resolution of this
issue is close at hand.
Environmental Impact Report
In the early 1990's, the environmental impact report was prepared for the project by City staff.
The initial draft EIR was released for comments in March of 1993. Following the close of the
public comment period, a number of comments and concerns were raised relative to the potential
impacts resulting from a reduction in the discharge to San Luis Creek. Additional biological and
hydrologic studies were undertaken and a revised draft EIR was released in December of 1996.
Comments to the revised draft EIR were addressed and the Final EIR was certified by the City
Council in March of 1997. The Notice of Determination for the project has not been filed yet
since the detailed mitigation plans and formal findings have not yet been adopted.
During the development of the environmental impact report, City staff solicited input from the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) but NMFS did not take interest in the project until
early 1997. The listing of the steelhead as a "threatened" species (August 18, 1997) heightened
the NMFS interest in the project. Based on the "threatened" listing of the steelhead, the City
entered into a Section 7 consultation process with NMFS relative to the potential impacts to the
species. The NMFS has recently issued a draft biologicalopinion relative to the impacts and
City staff are working with NMFS and Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)to resolve issues
contained in the draft opinion. Once the final biological opinion is completed by NMFS, it is
anticipated that the remaining protests may be withdrawn. A tentative agreement with the
Department of Fish and Game has been reached to resolve the issues raised in their protest. The
final agreement is pending completion of the final biological opinion by NMFS.
1-7
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 8
Recycled Water System Design
The consulting firm of Brown and Caldwell has been retained to provide engineering services
relative to the improvements necessary to utilize treated effluent from the Water Reclamation
Facility. The consultant services contract was broken into three phases. Council has approved
the work for Phase I which is approximately 50% complete at this time. Phase I work includes
an analysis and review of the improvements needed at the WRF ( storage, etc.) to provide water
for distribution throughout the city for non-potable uses. Phase I also involves preparation of an
"Engineering Report" for submittal to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the
Department of Health Services for their approval. Following completion of the Phase I work and
approval from the State Water Resources Control Board, Phase II work will be initiated which
involves preliminary design and pipeline routing alternatives. Phase III will involve preparation
of the final design documents.
Significant Stevs to Proiect Com letion
♦ Biological Opinion from National Marine Fisheries Service: Once the biological opinion
is finalized by NMFS and EPA, the information will be utilized by other regulatory agencies
(i.e. Fish and Game and the State Water Resources Control Board) for resolution of the
outstanding issues relative to the project. The final biological opinion is expected to be
completed by April of 1999.
♦ State Water Resources Control Board Approval: The State Water Resources Control
Board will utilize the biological opinion and other information to attempt to resolve the
protests that have been filed against the City's request for the change in the point of use and
purpose of use of the treated effluent from the WRF. The Department of Fish and Game filed
one of the protests, but City staff have been consulting with Fish and Game staff to resolve
their issues. Tentative agreement has been reached with Fish and Game and they are waiting
for the final biological opinion from NWS before formal withdrawal of their protest.
Protests by other downstream property owners based on impacts to the environment will not
likely be upheld by the State Board once the agencies responsible for protection of the
sensitive species and habitat have concurred that the project will not have significant impacts.
Therefore, it is likely that other protests will not be carried forward to a State Board hearing.
It is anticipated that the State Water Resources Control Board will grant the City's request for
change in the point of use and purpose of use for the treated effluent by January of 2000.
♦ Preliminary Design: Preliminary design of the facilities necessary to deliver recycled water
throughout the community will be initiated in the summer of 1999. The preliminary design
will review pipeline routes through the city, customers to be served, storage facility
requirements,pump station location and size, etc. It is anticipated that the preliminary design
report will be completed and presented to the City Council in January 2000.
1.8
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 9
♦ Final Design: Following Council review and approval of the preliminary design report, final
plans and specifications will be developed for the project. The preparation of the documents
are expected to take approximately seven months to complete which should be accomplished
by August 2000.
♦ Construction: Construction of the reclaimed water system facilities are anticipated to take
approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. Completion of the construction and first
deliveries of recycled water could occur by the summer of 2002.
Probability of Proiect Success
While the project has several hurdles to cross,there is a strong likelihood of successful resolution
of the issues which involve regulatory agencies. Following the resolution of these issues, the
project can be successfully completed. Of the three water supply projects currently being
pursued by the City, the Water Reuse Project will be the fust project that will be initiated and is
the one in which the City has the most control over the fate of the project.
Recommended Next Stens
Continue to aggressively pursue the development of the Water Reuse Project. Initiate the design
work identified in Phase II above immediately following the resolution of the issues involving
NUTS and EPA.
Nacinriento Pipeline Project
The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has an entitlement
to 17,500 acre feet per year from Nacimiento Lake. The County has dedicated 1,300 acre feet of
this available supply for uses around the lake, leaving 16,200 acre feet available for use in other
areas in the county. Monterey County owns and operates the Nacimiento Lake, as well as San
Antonio Lake. The San Luis Obispo County entitlement was a negotiated agreement between
the two counties at the time that the San Antonio Lake construction project was being pursued.
The Nacimiento Project, to deliver the County of San Luis Obispo's entitlement, was first
attempted in. the 1960's and then again in the 1970's. Both times the project did not move
forward due to a lack of commitment from various agencies. In 1991, during the height of the
drought, the City of San Luis Obispo was pursuing all available water supply alternatives due to
our dwindling water supplies. The City evaluated an alternative to secure an entitlement from
the County of San Luis Obispo for water from Nacimiento Lake and to construct the facilities to
deliver the water to the City of San Luis Obispo's water treatment plant. During the evaluation
of this alternative, the City requested an entitlement of 3,000 acre feet from the County's
available supply at Nacimiento Lake. The County determined that the entitlement from the
Nacimiento Project was intended to provide a benefit to multiple agencies throughout the county
and as such should be developed as a larger project and the City request to develop its own
allocation was denied. Based on this decision, interest in the project was solicited from various
1-9
Council Agenda Report-Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 10
agencies throughout the County. Numerous agencies throughout the County, including a number
in the South County, expressed interest at this preliminary stage.
A preliminary study was undertaken in 1992 to analyze the reliability of Nacimiento Lake to
deliver the full County entitlement of 17,500 acre feet each year. The analysis confirmed that
Nacimiento Lake is a very reliable water resource and could deliver the full County entitlement
ever year. Following the reliability study, the County initiated a feasibility report to analyze the
potential routes and options available to deliver water to all the interested agencies and
preliminary cost estimates for the water delivered. The report was completed in May of 1994 and
indicated that the costs for agencies in the South County (i.e. Pismo Beach, etc.), would likely
preclude their participation. The project also evaluated various pipeline routes and delivery
scenarios, including a pipeline to Whale Rock Reservoir. The feasibility report was presented to
the County Board of Supervisors (acting as the Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Board) and the preferred project alternative was selected for further analysis and study. The
identified preferred project was a "Highway 101 corridor" alignment which delivered water to
the communities of Paso Robles, Templeton,Atascadero, Santa Margarita, San Luis Obispo, and
areas immediately south of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Following this decision, the next phase of work was initiated which involved preliminary design
and preparation of the environmental impact report (EIR). The initial draft of the EIR was
released for public comment in August of 1997 and the public comment period closed in
February 1998. Numerous comments and areas of concern were raised during the public review
period. The County determined that a number of the issues raised required additional analysis
and review. Based on this determination, the County concluded that a revised draft EIR should
be prepared to further analyze and address the comments received. It should be noted that it is
not uncommon to undertake a revision to the draft EIR for projects of this scope and magnitude.
The revised draft EIR is currently being prepared. The main areas to be restudied are related to
pipeline alignments and pump station locations.
Significant Steps to Project Completion
♦ Revised Draft EIR: The revised draft EIR is anticipated to be released for public comment
in late fall of 1999. Assuming that the comments received on the revised drift do not require
significant changes to the document, the project schedule envisions that the Board of
Supervisors would consider certification of the Final EIR in the spring of 2000.
♦ Project Commitment from Participants: Following certification of the EIR, the County
will request agencies wishing to participate in the project to execute contracts committing the
agencies to the project. This step will be the pivotal point for the project At this point, the
agencies will have the information relative to costs and impacts and will be committing
themselves in the future to all costs associated with construction of the project and delivery
of water from Nacimiento Lake.
1-10
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 11
♦ Final Design: The final design will be initiated after execution of the contracts between the
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the participants in the project.
Final design is estimated to take 12 to 18 months to complete which would correspond to
summer or fall of 2001.
♦ Construction: The construction of the project would likely take 18 to 24 months to
complete. The very optimistic schedule to begin water deliveries from the project would be
the summer of 2003.
Probability of Project Success
The likelihood of success of the Nacimiento Project has been a major question for the past
several years. The successful completion of the project will require all the major participants
(i.e. Paso Robles, Atascadero Mutual Water Company, Templeton Community Services District
and the City of San Luis Obispo) to remain committed to the project. If one of the large
participants withdraws from the project, the cost per acre foot for the water will increase for
remaining participants. The increased costs could then lead to other participants withdrawing
their commitment which could result in deferral of the project for the third time since the 1960's.
Following certification of the environmental impact report, County staff intends to request legal,
binding commitments from interested participants prior to proceeding with final design,
permitting, and construction of the project. This will be the point of decision for all agencies and
will call the question of whether the project moves forward at this time.
Recommended Next Stens
Continue staff support on the Nacimiento Participants Advisory Committee to actively support
the development of the Nacimiento Pipeline Project as a regional water supply to serve multiple
agency needs. Work with County staff in the development of future participation agreements for
the project.
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project
The Salinas Reservoir was originally constructed in 1941 by the War Department (now U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers) to supply water for Camp San Luis as well as the City of San Luis
Obispo. The federal government filed for a water rights permit for the impoundment and use of
water from the Salinas River on May 21, 1941. On June 4, 1941, the City of San Luis Obispo
filed a permit with the State Water Resources Control Board for an identical amount of water
storage and use from the Salinas River with the place of use of the water identified as the City of
San Luis Obispo,as opposed to the Camp. The federal government only used a small amount of
water for several years immediately following the construction of the dam and following that
time, the City of San Luis Obispo has been using all of the water from the reservoir under the
terms of our permit from the SWRCB. The existence of two permits for the same storage and
diversion rights at a reservoir is an uncommon situation. Due to the lack of water use by the
federal government, the State Water Resources Control Board initiated discussions with the City
1-11
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 12
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to revoke the Corps Permit #5581 and add the
Corps to the City's Permit #5882. In 1995, the Corps and the City agreed to conditions which
allowed the Corps permit to be revoked and added the Corps to the City's water rights permit.
The Salinas Dam was originally designed to include an operable spillway gate which would have
allowed for an additional amount of water(up to 45,000 acre feet)to be stored in the lake. At the
time of construction, the Corps decided not to install the gates due to structural concerns in the
right abutment foundation area. At the time of completion of the dam, the Corps also realized
that the full amount of water from the lake would not be required to meet the needs of Camp San
Luis Obispo. With the installation of a 19 foot high spillway gate, the reservoir storage capacity
would be increased from 23,843 acre feet to 41,792 acre feet. The City's water rights permit
allows storage of up to 45,000 acre feet.
The City of San Luis Obispo has been pursuing the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project for
many years. In the late 1980's, the City contracted with the firm of Woodward-Clyde
Consultants to prepare a study of the feasibility of expanding the storage capacity at the lake and
to estimate the increase in safe annual yield resulting from the increased capacity. The report
titled "Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project: Part I - Geotechnical, Seismicity and Dam Safety,
Part H - Hydrology, Reservoir Yield and Evaluation Alternatives" was completed in 1990. The
study concluded that the dam could be modified to install a 19 foot high operable gate in the
spillway and still meet the safety requirements of the State Division of Safety of Dams. In
addition, the analysis determined that with the increased storage capacity the amount of water
that could be relied upon from the lake would increase by 1,650 acre feet per year. Following the
completion of this study, the City Council directed staff to initiate the work necessary to
complete the CEQA requirements for the expansion project.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants were retained to prepare the studies and biological surveys
necessary to prepare the draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project. The initial draft EIR for the project was released for public comment in
November,of 1993 and the comment period closed on January 3, 1994. Numerous comments
and concerns were raised by agencies and individuals relative to the draft EIR. Based on the
comments and issues raised, Council directed additional studies and evaluations be undertaken
and a revised draft EIR was prepared for the project. During the preparation of the revised draft,
a Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC) was formed to provide input relative to locations and
strategies for mitigating the impacts to oak woodlands and riparian habitats resulting from the
increased water levels around the lake. The MAC involved representatives from regulatory
agencies, such as Fish & Game, and interested individuals in the north county, as well as
environmental representatives. While a number of the participants on the MAC did not support
the proposed project, the group worked together to identify the best opportunities and strategies
available to mitigate the project related impacts should the project go forward. The outcome of
the committee's ideas and recommendations were included in the revised draft EIR mitigation
strategies.
1-12
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 13
The revised draft EIR was completed and released for public comment in May of 1997 and the
public review period closed on July 25, 1997. Following the close of the comment period, the
consultants prepared responses to all comments and revised the draft EIR as appropriate. The
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project was completed
in May of 1998 and the City Council certified the document on June 2, 1998. While the final
EIR was certified, the Notice of Determination (NOD) for the project was not filed since the
decision to move forward with the project has not yet been made. Detailed mitigation plans must
be prepared and additional steps (as discussed later in this section) must be completed before
Council approves the project and files the NOD.
Ownership of the Dam and Associated Property
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has desired for many years (20+), to transfer the ownership
of the dam, surrounding property and related facilities to a local agency. The dam serves no
federal benefit and is not operated by the Corps of Engineers. The dam is operated by the
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District under an operating agreement with the
Corps. The City pays all of the costs associated with dam operation and water deliveries. The
County also has an agreement for operation of the recreational facilities at the lake which is
administered by the Parks Division. In addition, the City has an agreement with the Corps for
use of water from the lake under the terms of the City's water rights permit.
Until 1992,the City and County had disagreed for many years as to which agency should acquire
ownership. During development of the EIR for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, the
Corps has stated that they will not allow the installation of the spillway gates until the ownership
is transferred to a local agency. The Corps will not be an arbitrator on this issue and directed the
City and County to resolve the issue of which agency should acquire title to the property. Based
on the actions by the Corps, City staff prepared an evaluation of the alternatives available relative
to local ownership of the dam and reservoir area. The report was presented to the City Council
in November of 1992.
The three options identified for ownership transfer were to the City, to the County or to a Joint
Powers Agency. The pros and cons of each of the alternatives were analyzed and the likely
opposition to each of the alternatives were discussed Based on this analysis and discussion, the
City Council directed staff to develop the necessary agreements to protect the interests of the
City and supported transfer of ownership to the County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District. A committee of City and County staff was formed to work out the terms of the
agreements for transfer of ownership and ongoing maintenance and operations of the facilities.
These agreements required approximately 18 months of meetings to resolve all the issues. The
agreements were not formally presented to the Council and Board of Supervisors at that time due
to requests to delay action on the agreements until after certification of the EIR for the expansion
project
1-13
Council Agenda Report Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 14
Significant Steps to Project Completion
There are five main areas which must be addressed prior to initiation of project construction: 1.)
ownership transfer of the dam and surrounding property, 2.) development of detailed mitigation
plans, 3.) resolution of the City's water rights permit, 4.) additional analysis and associated work
with DSOD staff relative to structural adequacy of the dam with the new spillway gates, and 5.)
project design and permitting. These issues are discussed in further detail below.
• Ownership Transfer: To begin the process for ownership transfer, City and County staff
would reconvene the committee which developed the transfer of ownership agreements and
insure that the documents are current and address all relevant issues. The agreements would
then be brought before the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors for
consideration and approval. The agreements include conditions for allocating costs to each
agency for the ownership transfer work and related studies. The transfer of ownership will
require compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) since the
transfer of the property is a federal action. This is similar to CEQA and will require the
development of an Environmental Assessment(EA)and potentially an Environmental Impact
Study (EIS). At this point, an EA for the property transfer is anticipated. The property
transfer will also require a hazardous materials assessment of the property and a cultural
resources evaluation. It is anticipated that special legislation would be the preferred
mechanism to allow the property to be transferred from the federal government to a local
agency. The property transfer would be added to an appropriate water related legislative
proposal. This could allow the property to be transferred for a minimal fee (if any). The
preliminary schedule developed for completion of the work necessary to accomplish the
property transfer indicates a completion date of August 2000.
• Detailed Mitigation Plans: The detailed mitigation plans will require discussions with
property owners in the areas above and below the lake which have been identified as
potential mitigation sites. Promising locations will receive additional investigations and
property owners will be contacted to determine their willingness to allow the property to be
used as a mitigation site. Negotiations with the private property owners will be undertaken to
secure easements, acquisition of the property or other measures to allow the mitigation
measures to be implemented and insure protection of the mitigation measures in the future.
Preliminary agreements with property owners are anticipated to be completed by fall of 2000.
Following preliminary agreements with the private property owners, detailed mitigation plans
will be developed for each site. This work must be completed prior to the Council decision
relative to proceeding with the project and filing of the Notice of Determination for the
project. Depending on the success and cost of the mitigation measures, Council may need to
make findings of overriding considerations relative to the project related impacts.
Completion of the final detailed mitigation plans is estimated to occur by October of 2001.
♦ Water Rights Permit: The City's water rights permit relative to the Salinas Reservoir was
filed on June 4, 1941. Water rights permits are granted for a specific period of time and time
extensions are requested periodically. Typically, the SWRCB grants time extensions for up
1-14
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 15
to 10 years depending on the specific situation. While urban water appropriators, such as
cities, are recognized by the SWRCB as being somewhat different than individuals property
owners who appropriate water, the total permitted water should be developed and put to
beneficial use in a reasonable period of time. If the City decides not to pursue the Salinas
Project in lieu of the Nacjmjento Project, there is a possibility that the SWRCB could rule
that the City has lost its rights to the expanded capacity. The City of San Luis Obispo
requested a ten year extension in 1990 and one protest was filed by California Sportfishing
Protection Alliance(CalSpa)based on public trust issues (i.e. impacts to steelhead, etc.). The
City was in the process of developing the draft EIR for the expansion project and a number of
studies were underway to analyze the potential downstream impacts resulting from storage of
the additional water. SWRCB staff were waiting for the certification of the Final EIR for the
project prior to scheduling a Board hearing to resolve the issue. Following certification of
the EIR, City staff requested that the Board hearing be scheduled. Due to limited staff at the
Board and the large number of pending cases, no date has been set for the hearing. Preparing
for a SWRCB hearing is similar to preparing for a lawsuit before a judicial court and there
are significant legal expenses relative to this preparation. The earliest anticipated date for a
hearing would be the summer of 1999. Following the hearing, it can take up to 12 months
for the final decision to be issued. The final decision may not be made until the summer of
2000 or shortly thereafter.
• DSOD Approval: Since the Corps has indicated that the dam and property must be
transferred to a local agency, the State Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) will be
responsible for the oversight of the facilities in the future. It is important to involve DSOD in
the process early to insure that the agency is comfortable with the recommended
improvements and structural safety of the facility. City staff will recommend that additional
analysis be undertaken (i.e. core drillings, refined structural analysis, etc.) and the
information shared and developed with the concurrence of DSOD. This approach will
minimize the potential for obstacles to the expansion project surfacing following the transfer
of the ownership. Final certification of the dam facility by DSOD would occur immediately
following the transfer of ownership and is anticipated to occur by August 2000.
• Final Design and Permitting: Following completion of the above listed items, final design
and permitting for the expansion project will be initiated. Final design plans will require
review and approval of DSOD. The schedule for the project estimates that the final design
and permitting should be completed by October of 2001.
• Construction: Construction of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, including recreation
facilities relocation, is anticipated to take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete.
Completion of the construction could occur by the summer of 2003.
Probability of Project Success
Work on the Salinas Expansion Project has been underway for many years. Following the
release of the jnjtial draft EIR for the project, significant opposition was raised by agencies and
1-15
Council Agenda Report- Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 16
individuals in the north county. Opposition to this project, or any water supply project, is not
likely to be completely resolved. Assuming approval of the City's request.for time extension on
our water rights permit and resolution of the ownership issue, the decision to move forward with
the project will be in the hands of the City Council. While litigation relative to proceeding with
this project has been mentioned by some individuals, the analysis of the project suggests that
such actions would not likely be supported by the facts and relevant studies. While the issues to
be resolved prior to proceeding with construction of the project may appear onerous at times,
staff believes that the project is very sound and with strong Council support can be successfully
completed.
Recommended Next Stens
Develop consultant services agreement to accomplish the studies and work scope outlined
previously in this section. Present work plan and associated costs for consultant services to the
City Council for approval.
Alternative Projects Not Currently Being Pursued
There are several water supply sources which may potentially provide additional water resources
for the City of San Luis Obispo. Increased use of groundwater resources, desalination and State
Water are discussed briefly in the following sections.
Groundwater
The City reactivated the use of limited groundwater sources in 1989 as a result of the drought
and diminishing water supplies in Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs. In 1990 and 1991, the
City pumped almost 2,000 acre feet of groundwater each year to stretch our limited water
supplies. The significant withdrawal of groundwater by the City and other groundwater
extractors caused subsidence problems in the area overlying the basin. In 1990, the City hired
Boyle Engineers to conduct an evaluation of the groundwater,basin and to estimate of the yield
of the basin. The study was completed in 1991 and suggested that through different management
strategies, groundwater extractions up to 2,000 acre feet annually may be possible. The report is
not real clear on this point, but discussions between Boyle and City staff recognized that this
amount could not be relied upon through an extended drought period such as the 1986-91
drought. Based on the experience during the drought, the City adopted a figure of 500 acre feet.
per year as a basis for planning purposes. Since that time, the City has lost two of the largest
producing wells due to nitrate contamination. The groundwater production since the loss of
these two wells as averaged approximately 335 acre feet per year.
There are opportunities to increase groundwater extractions, particularly during average or wet
years. The groundwater basin in San Luis Obispo is very small and as such can not be relied on
for large quantities of water through an extended drought. Conversely, since the basin is
relatively small, it quickly fills during winters of average or above rainfall. This has been
demonstrated over the past several years since the City began monitoring water levels in the
1-16
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 17
basin. Increasing groundwater extractions will require treatment facilities for removal of nitrates
as well as PCE contamination. The treatment process would utilize reverse osmosis or ion
exchange for nitrate removal and carbon absorption for PCE removal. A site for the treatment
facilities would need to be located in the area overlying the basin (likely in the Dalidio area):
The site would need to be selected to minimize visual impacts while still allowing access for
delivery equipment and operations staff. Previous analysis indicates that the treatment facilities
could cost one million dollars or more, depending on the treatment capacity, siting constraints
and other factors. However, the cost per acre foot of additional groundwater may be less than
other alternatives currently being pursued depending on the actual increase to safe annual yield.
Recommended-Next Stens
Direct staff to prepare additional studies and analysis to determine the additional safe annual
yield that could be obtained through a coordinated program of increased groundwater extractions
during average and wet years and heavier reliance on surface water from Salinas and Whale
Rock during periods of reduced groundwater availability. This idea is similar to the coordinated
operation strategy for Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs, which increase the safe annual yield
above the amount that would be estimated if the reservoirs were operated independently. Also,
prepare a cost analysis for development of additional safe annual yield from the groundwater
basin.
Desalination
In May 1990, the City was faced with the prospect of reaching minimum pool in both of its
surface water supply sources within an 18 to 20 month period. In response to the crisis, the City
embarked on a short term desalination feasibility investigation. The consulting firm of James
Montgomery Engineers was hired to prepare a study which evaluated the various desalination
methods, site options,joint venture opportunities, and financing.
The preliminary analysis concluded that 3,000 acre-feet per year of desalted water could be
provided by using reverse osmosis technology which was considered the most cost effective
technology at that time to meet the City's needs. The project capital cost was estimated to be
$19.5 million and annual operations and maintenance costs were estimated at about $4 million.
The recommendation was based on capital costs, operation and maintenance costs,
decommissioning costs, aesthetics and environmental concerns. Due to the limited time
available to site the facility and build the necessary infrastructure, a tentative agreement with
PG&E was reached to locate the short-term (5 years) facility at the Morro Bay power plant
utilizing their seawater intake and outfall facilities.
Using desalted water as a long-term future water supply source will have to be investigated
independently of the past research and study projects. Because the previously discussed
desalination endeavor was planned as a short-term water supply to meet a crisis situation, the
cost analysis, location, environmental review, and technological information will all have to be
reevaluated for a long-term project.
1-17
Council Agenda Report 7 Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 18
Desalination is a viable technology which is not rainfall dependent. The major disadvantages of
desalination are the cost, potential environmental degradation, and energy demand. When
compared to existing water supplies and other future water supply options under consideration,
desalted water is significantly more expensive ($2,000 to $3,000 per acre foot) at this point in
time. Desalination'may be a water supply consideration in the future if other water supply
projects currently under review are not accomplished. Advances in desalination technology in
the future may reduce the costs to a more acceptable level when compared to the cost of other
water supply sources.
Recommended Next Stens
No additional work at this point in time is wan-anted relative to desalination as a water supply
alternative.
State Water Project
On January 30, 1999 the City Council held a budget workshop relative to Major City Goals. The
number one goal for the Council was development of additional water supplies. At this meeting,
Council directed staff to prepare a report relative to all potential water supply projects and
strategies which could meet the water needs of city, including the State Water Project.
The State Water Project Coastal Branch Pipeline has been completed to deliver water to several
agencies within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. The Coastal Branch includes a
regional water treatment plant and approximately 102 miles of buried pipeline. There are also
local pipeline facilities, such as the Chorro Valley pipeline which were constructed to deliver
water to the service areas of local water agencies. The pipeline and treatment plant have been
designed based on contracted water entitlements within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara
Counties. Therefore, there is no additional available capacity in either the delivery system or
treatment plant -for additional participants within the two counties. However, additional
participants could be accommodated through re-allocation of existing entitlements or other
negotiated agreements.
In the early 1990's,the City of San Luis Obispo was considering participation in the State Water
Project. The City had expressed an interest in 3,000 acre feet from the project. Prior to the City
Council's decision on the project, the Council placed an advisory ballot measure to receive
public input which ultimately recommended against participation in the project (see Attachment
A for more details). Following this advisory vote, the City Council approved execution of the
agreements for participation in the project on a 3-2 vote. Following this action, a petition was
circulated and a referendum was placed on the November 3, 1992 ballot to overtum this decision.
The referendum ultimately overturned the Council's decision to participate in the State Water
Project with 11,411 voters in favor and 9,423 opposed(54.8%to 45.2%)
1-18
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 19
On October 3, 1995, the City Council held a public meeting on water supplies to discuss the
alternatives and to provide direction to staff relative to obtaining additional water resources to
meet General Plan build-out and provide for a reliability reserve. A copy of the section of the
staff report pertaining to the potential use of State Water is provided as Attachment A to this
report. The majority of the information in the 1995 report is still valid and provides a thorough
discussion of potential alteratives available for Council consideration. With the completion of
the State Water Project Pipeline, many of the concerns and issues relative to the State Water
Project which may have led to the city voters decision not to participate in the project are now
clearly defined or may no longer be valid issues. As the attached report discusses, the State
Water Project may provide an option for supplying water for the "reliability reserve" (2,000 acre
feet) which would be less costly than other alteratives available to the City and would have
limited, if any, additional.environmental impacts.
The use of the "reliability reserve", once it is established, is only allowed to meet emergency
needs of the community and can not be used to allow additional growth and development.
Restrictions on the use of the reliability reserve were placed to a vote of the community and the
community supported placing these limitations in the City Charter to insure that future Council
actions would not allow the water to be used for additional growth.
The information provided in Attachment A is for comparison purposes and for Council
consideration of potential alternatives to develop additional water resources while minimizing
future water rate impacts. If the Council chose to pursue State Water as an option for reliability
reserve or supply, although not required, staff would recommend that the issue be presented to
the residents as a ballot measure.
Recommended Next Sterns
Direct staff to prepare a thorough evaluation of the alternatives available relative to the State
Water Project. Prepare a report based on the facts relative to utilizing the State Water Project to
provide the reliability reserve, the costs associated with each alternative and the implications
relative to city water rates.
Water Supply Development Strategy
Based on the goals and policies contained the General Plan and the Water Management Element,
the City has an identified additional water supply need of 3,861 acre feet. The Council has
supported the strategy of pursuing three alteratives to meet our water supply deficit: Water
Reuse, Nacimiento and the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Projects. Current cost estimates for
water developed from each of these sources are shown in the table below:
1-19
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 20
Table 3: Costs for Water Supply Alternatives
Project Cost 7
Water Reuse Project $775 per acre foot
Nacimiento Pipeline Project $800- 1,100 per acre foot
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project $800- 1,200 per acre foot
The current Council direction is to aggressively pursue the implementation of the water reuse
project due to the lower costs for water developed from this source and the recognition that this
is the one project that the City has the most control of and appears to have the fewest
environmental impacts and associated opposition. Staff concurs with this direction. The Water
Reuse Project will likely be the first new water resource added to the City's existing supplies.
Salinas and Nacimiento Projects Relationship
As stated earlier, the City has been pursuing the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project for many
years. Following the release of the initial draft EIR, significant opposition to the project was
raised by individuals and agencies in the north county. While additional analysis and studies
have been undertaken since that time, there are still concerns and opposition to the City's
expanded use of water from the Salinas River. Many people feel that the water resource should
remain in the north county and the City of San Luis Obispo does not have a right to this water.
This is a very emotional and political issue which will likely never be resolved to the satisfaction
of all north county agencies or individuals. However, California Water Law was developed to
allow agencies and individuals to appropriate waters of the State for use in areas outside the area
of origination of those water resources and the City is utilizing water under the terms of the
permit issued by the SWRCB.
At the time that the Nacimiento Project was initiated,the City Council decided that there was the
potential for developing the additional water resources which the City needs from the .
Nacimiento Project Based on the concerns raised by north county agencies and individuals on
the City's Salinas Project, the Council agreed to work cooperatively with the north county to
develop the Nacimiento Project to meet the City of San Luis Obispo's water supply needs. At
that time, the Salinas Reservoir.Expansion Project EIR was under revision and the Nacimiento
draft EIR was underway. Schedules for the two EIR's indicated that both documents were on
relatively parallel tracks and the Council directed staff to pursue both projects and provide the
Council with each document for certification or review at approximately the same time. Due to
issues raised on the initial draft of the EIR for the Nacimiento Project, as discussed earlier in this
report, the schedules for the two projects diverged. Based on these events, Council certified the
EIR for the Salinas Project in June of 1998 but did not make a decision to proceed with the
Salinas Project until the Nacinuento Project was more clearly defined and a decision could be
made as to which project should be pursued. Work associated with the Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project has essentially been on hold since the certification of the Final EIR.
1-20
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 21
The Final EIR for the Nacimiento Project is currently envisioned to be presented to the County
Board of Supervisors for certification in the spring of 2000. Based on past experience with this
and other projects of this scope, the schedule may be optimistic and could be further delayed in
the future. In addition, based on recent meetings of the Paso Robles City Council, there appears
to be dwindling support by the City of Paso Robles for participation in the project at this time.
The City of Paso Robles overlies an extensive groundwater basin and as such their water needs
are not as imminent as the City of San Luis Obispo's. If the City of Paso Robles fails to commit
to the project, the costs to other participants will increase and will result in the project being put
on hold until a future date.
Revised Strategy
City staff continue to support the Nacimiento Project as a very reliable, regional water supply
project that could meet many agencies' water needs in the future. The concern involves what
will be the City's position in two or more years if the Nacimiento Project does not move forward.
The development of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project has many additional studies and
issues which must be resolved prior to a decision on proceeding with the project can be made.
While the City may wish to minimize the financial expenditures relative to the Salinas Reservoir
Project until a decision on the Nacmi iento Project can be made, this may place the City of San
Luis Obispo in a position of not having enough time to develop the Salinas Project by the point
in time that the community needs the additional water supplies and may also jeopardize the
City's future rights to the expanded capacity of the reservoir.
Based on these concerns, staff recommends that the additional studies and evaluations (as
outlined earlier in this report)relative to the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project be aggressively
pursued. This approach will allow the City to be in a position to quickly initiate the expansion
project should the Nacui iento Project not move forward in the firture. The final decision point
for the Salinas Project, based on current estimates for both projects, could still be significantly
past the decision point for the Nacimiento Project. A separate report identifying the proposed
scope of work and costs associated with completing the additional work for the Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project is forthcoming.
Staff would also recommend that additional analysis be undertaken relative to increasing
groundwater supplies. The cooperative operation of increased groundwater extractions during
average/wet years and heavier reliance on the surface water sources during drier periods could
provide an increase in the safe annual yield above the 500 acre feet currently adopted for
groundwater. In addition, the siting and treatment costs require additional study to determine if
this alternative is more cost effective than other water supply projects currently being pursued.
Summary
The City of San Luis Obispo has been pursuing three water supply projects to meet the projected
water needs of the community: Water Reuse Project, Nacimiento Pipeline Project and the
Salinas Reservoir Project All of these projects have issues and concerns which must be
1-21
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Projects Study Session
Page 22
addressed prior to project initiation. The Water Reuse Project is likely to be the first project that
can be initiated and is the project which the City has the most control of. As such, the City
should continue to actively pursue the Water Reuse Project.
The Nacimiento and Salinas Projects are somewhat tied together. A final decision to move
forward with the Nacimiento Project may negate the need for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion
Project at this time. There is the potential for the Nacmi iento Project to be placed on hold again,
as has occurred in the past, and if this were to occur the City of San Luis Obispo may have no
other option but to proceed with the Salinas Project. Based on these concerns, staff would
recommend that the costs for the additional studies and work for the project, which must be
completed prior to a decision on proceeding with the project, be included in the 1999/01 budget.
This does not effectively modify the previous overall strategy which the Council has supported
which is to proceed with both the Salinas and Nacimiento Projects on a parallel track, but it does
position the City in the event that the Nacimiento Project fails to move forward.
FISCAL IMPACT
The water impact fees,which are currently in place, recover the costs associated with developing
additional water supplies necessary to serve new development. Existing rate payers will not have
to pay for the water needed for new development.
A portion of the identified water needs relative to the reliability reserve and siltation is needed to
serve existing water customers. The water rates will need to support the development of a
portion of these new water supplies and therefore rate increases may be necessary in the future.
If the City can develop the additional supplies, including the reliability reserve, at a lower annual
cost,then future rate increases will be reduced or eliminated.
The water fund review and rate analysis is prepared annually for Council review and adoption in
May. The rate analysis projects four to five years out to determine revenues necessary to support
the operations, maintenance, capital improvements, and debt service of the Water Fund. The
Water Fund is an enterprise fund and therefore no money comes from the City's General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
A. October 3, 1995 Council Agenda Report titled"Water Supply Study Session"
1-22
�► � � city of san Lu. osispo At+lachment A
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Supply Study Session
Page 19
$25,000,000 range. In addition to the capital costs, the cost to treat Nacimiento water should
also be included. Nacimiento water will be treated at a regional water treatment plant.
Treatment plant operations, maintenance, overhead, and expenses will be distributed
proportionally to all participants. Boyle Engineering has estimated the annual operations and
maintenance costs to be around $325/af. This would bring the total cost of Nacimiento water
to between $900 and $1100 per acre-foot.
M. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS NOT CURRENTLY BEING PURSUED
The following projects are not currentV being pursued by the City but may be viable alternatives
for Council's consideration.
A. CLOUD SEEDING
The City of San Luis Obispo activated a three year cloud seeding program in January 1991 in
response to the continuing drought and limited surface water supplies at Salinas Reservoir. The
program "targeted" the Salinas and Lopez Reservoir watersheds, and the County of San Luis
Obispo paid their prorata share of the total cost for the cloud seeding program. The City's
participation in the program ended in January 1993, when the Salinas Reservoir filled to capacity
and began spilling.
Evaluations of each year's cloud seeding program were completed following each winter season.
Estimates of increased precipitation ranged from 11% to 14% for Salinas and Lopez Reservoir
watersheds. These were substantial increases and proved to be a cost-effective means of
enhancing runoff during periods when Salinas Reservoir and Lopez Lake water levels are low.
Salinas Reservoir's watershed runoff characteristics are favorable for producing significant runoff
during normal rain seasons. Therefore, cloud seeding is not viewed as an annual program but
as a,program that the Council may approve following below normal rainfall years and/or periods
when significant storage volume is available in Salinas Reservoir to capture additional runoff.
cost
The cost for a full season of cloud seeding (November 1 through April 1) was approximately
$150,000. This was for both Salinas and Lopez watersheds.
B. STATE WATER PROJECT
The Coastal Branch, Phase II, of the State Water Project is currently under construction to
provide water deliveries to San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. The City of San Luis
1-23
=Ii�!� city of San LL ; OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Supply Study Session
Page 20
Obispo is not a participant in the State Water Project. The Coastal Branch, Phase II, will be
a regional water treatment plant and a buried pipeline approximately 102 miles long. It will
transport water from the California Aqueduct from the Phase I terminus near Devil's Den in
Kern County, continue through San Luis Obispo County, and terminate at the Tank 5 site on
Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County. Local water transport facilities, such as
the Chorro Valley Pipeline, will connect to the Coastal Branch pipeline to deliver the water to
the service areas of local water agencies. Water deliveries to San Luis Obispo County are
estimated to be available in November 1996.
The information presented below is for comparison purposes and Council consideration as
potential alternatives to minimize future water rate impacts. If the Council chose to pursue State
Water. as an option, although not required, the issue could be presented to the residents as a
ballot,measure, perhaps in conjunction with the City Charter amendment restricting the 2,000
of reliability reserve for emergency purposes (not new development).
Background
The County of San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District(District)entered
into a contract in 1963 with the Department of Water Resources for an allocation of 25,000 acre-
feet of water per year from the State Water Project. Since that time the District has been
making payments under the terms of the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement,
payments increased over time since 1963 which recovered the debt service relative to the
District's prorata share of the construction of the conveyance facilities from the Delta to the
point of connection of the Coastal Branch of the California Aqueduct.
For many years prior to 1992, numerous cities, water districts, agricultural interests, and
individuals expressed interest in participating in the project to deliver State Water to the Counties
of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. The City of San Luis Obispo continued to express an
interest in the State Water Project and had requested an entitlement of 3,000 acre-feet per year.
I
Prior to the City Council's decision to participate in the State Water Project, the Council
requested a special election and placed an advisory ballot measure to receive public input
concerning the City's participation in the State Water Project. The special election had a 30
percent voter turnout. The advisory vote recommended against participation in the project with
3,670 opposed to 2,927 supportive (55.6% to 44.4%). Following the advisory vote, the City
Council approved execution of the agreements for participation in the State Water Project on
April 21, 1992 on a 3-2 vote.
Following this action by the City Council, a petition was circulated and sufficient signatures
obtained for a referendum to overturn the Council's decision to execute the agreements. The
referendum was placed on the November 3, 1992 ballot. The November election had an 81
1-24.
�IIIl �1'd city of san tui Mispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Supply Study Session
Page 21
percent voter turnout. The referendum to overturn the Council's decision passed with 11,411
in favor and 9,423 opposed (54.8% to 45.2%).
There were many concerns raised relative to the State Water Project which led to the City
resident's decision not to participate in the project. The issues included reliability concerns,
environmental impacts to the delta, environmental impacts due to pipeline construction, growth
inducement, high costs and water quality concerns and a preference for local supply projects
(Salinas Dam, Water Reuse, and Nacimiento) as lower cost, environmentally superior projects.
The pipeline is currently being constructed and many of these issues are now more clearly
defined or may no longer be valid issues as discussed below:
■ Mitigation strategies for protection of the delta are currently being negotiated
which will ultimately be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board.
These negotiated agreements are being developed with representatives from
agricultural, environmental and urban interests. These agreements will place new
operational constraints on the project. Although the operational constraints will
impact project deliveries, it will also provide urban interests with a greater degree
of certainty relative to future water planning.
■ The impacts associated with the pipeline construction have been addressed in the
final environmental impact report and subsequent supplements to the document.
■ The potential for significant cost overruns on a project of this magnitude are
always a possibility. In 1992, the costs per acre foot for water delivered to the
City were estimated to range between $500 - $700. Current cost estimates if the
City were a participant would be at the high end of this price range at
approximately $700 per acre foot.
■ The issue of water quality is more of an emotional issue than a technical issue.
The water will be treated at a regional water treatment to meet all state and
federal water quality standards. This level of treatment is not an option but an
absolute requirement.
I
■ The costs and impacts of local water supply projects are now more clearly defined
as identified earlier in this report.
Numerous agencies and individuals decided in 1992 not to participate in the State Water Project.
Although the District had an entitlement of 25,000 acre-feet, only 4,830 acre-feet were actually
contracted for within San Luis Obispo County. There are currently discussions between the
i
County and several agencies who have contracted for State Water to purchase an additional
1,713 acre-feet of the unallocated water for reliability purposes. This leaves 18,457 acre-feet
1-25
MY of san tins oBi spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Supply Study Session
Page 22
of unallocated state water which the District is currently negotiating for sale to agencies outside
the County.
The pipeline and water treatment plant are currently under construction and have been designed
based on the contracted water entitlements within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.
Therefore, there is no available capacity in either the delivery system or treatment plant for
additional participants within the two counties; however, as noted above, additional participants
could be accommodated through re-allocations of existing entitlements.
Alternatives I
If Council were interested in pursuing options relative to using state water, they may wish to
consider its potential for use as a reliability reserve. The "reliability reserve" or other water
needs, could be presented to a vote of the residents of San Luis Obispo. Although there was
opposition to the project in the past, there are several alternatives which may be supported by
the residents based on the goal of minimizing future water rates. Based on the fact that a large
percentage of the additional water supply needs of the City are for a "reliability reserve" (2,000
acre-feet) which will not be needed except in emergencies, there could be opportunities to
deliver water from other sources through the State's conveyance system ("wheel water") during
these periods. The expense to rate payers for securing the reliability reserve through the
projects currently being pursued could exceed $2,000,000 per year. The alternatives are
conceptual in nature and have not been thoroughly evaluated to determine feasibility, reliability
or actual costs. The following list may not include all of the potential combination of
alternatives.
1. The least costly alternative would likely be to request that-the City be allowed to
construct a turnout on the State Water Pipeline for emergency use in the future.
In the event of an emergency, the City would have no water allocation or
treatment/delivery capacity and would have to negotiate a deal with another
downstream State Water contractor for capacity and allocation. This option
would likely not provide the level of reliability that the City desires to adequately
protect our residents.
2. The City could request a connection to the pipeline and immediately negotiate an
agreement with another contractor for use of their allocation and I
treatment/delivery capacity during an emergency situation. The allocation could
be from an agency within San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara County or could be I
negotiated with an agency that has other water supplies which could be "wheeled"
through the system. Other water sources could come from agencies or individuals
with large groundwater basins, surface water sources separate from the Delta or i
desalination facilities.
!TAj city of San luib OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Supply Study Session
Page 23
3. The City could request an allocation from the unallocated water which the District
is currently negotiating for sale. This would provide the City with a right to a
certain amount of water but would not provide the City with any right to the
delivery/treatment capacity. An agreement could then be negotiated with a
downstream water agency to utilize their treatment/delivery capacity during an
emergency period. The County is interested in recovering the costs which have
been paid by County residents since 1963 for the remaining unallocated water
supplies. Therefore, the County may require a one time lump sum payment to
purchase an entitlement. It is estimated that this charge would be on the order
of$1,000 - $1,500 per acre foot of entitlement. There would also be an annual
payment of approxim4tely $125 per acre foot until the year 2035. If the City
requested 2,000 acre-feet, the one time lump sum payment would likely be
between $2 and $3 million. The lump sum payment could be debt financed, in
which case the annual debt service cost would be about $200,000 to $300,000.
Under this circumstance, the cost per acre foot would be between$225 and $275.
4. The City could negotiate with a downstream contractor to buy a portion of their
entitlement in the State Water Project. This is likely the most costly alternative
and the negotiating agency would likely try to recoup the full costs which they are
required to pay. Since charges to contractors are based on their prorata share of
the capital costs for the delivery and treatment facilities to their point of
connection to the pipeline, the contractors in Santa Barbara County pay more than
contractors in San Luis Obispo County.
eliabilit
Reliability of the State Water Project is a major concern to all participants in the State Water
Project. Some agencies have decided to increase their allocation amount by 100 percent which
would allow the agencies to receive the original contracted amount even if deliveries are cut by
50 percent due to drought or other operational limitations. These agencies are not increasing
their capacity in the Coastal Branch delivery or treatment facilities which are the major ongoing
cost for participants. It should also be noted that during the recent drought when State Water
Project deliveries were drastically reduced, agencies were able to purchase water from a "water
bank" which the state created through negotiations with water contractors that had other sources
of water or who were able to cut back their water needs. While agencies during the drought did
not receive their full allocation from the State Water Project, agencies could purchase additional
water from the drought water bank for between $75 and $150 per acre foot. The drought bank I
had more water available than agencies needed. The State Water Project does provide many
opportunities to negotiate water trades or purchases from other areas. Purchased or negotiated
water can then be "wheeled" through the system. While state water is not a guaranteed source I
of supply, neither are any other source of water supplies which can be loss due to issues such
=FA! MY Of San Luis OBISPO
M 511 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Supply Study Session
Page 24
as: groundwater contamination, water rights, public trust, leg
negotiate water trades and "wheel" al actions etc. This ability to
water may hold significant potential to provide the City the
reliability that we are seeking through the 2,000 acre-feet per year reliability reserve at a much
lower cost.
rimin
The Coastal Branch of the State Water Project is currently under construction with deliveries to
San Luis Obispo County expected to begin in November 1996.
Cost
The estimated costs in 1992 for the City of San Luis Obispo were estimated between $500 and
$700 per acre foot. The staff report presented to the City Council on April 21, 1992 estimated
that the cost was approximately $608 per acre foot. The most recent cost estimates are shown
in Figure 1 on the next page. In the vicinity of San Luis Obispo, the total cost per acre foot
(including operations, maintenance, etc.) is estimated to be$694 per acre foot. If the City were
to pursue one of the alternatives discussed previously, the cost could be less than this amount
or significantly higher depending on which alternative is pursued and the outcome of the
negotiations with other agencies.
C SALINAS TO WHALE ROCK TRANSFER
The idea of transferring water from Salinas Reservoir to Whale Rock Reservoir was evaluated
by City staff and presented to Council in 1993. The analysis revealed numerous obstacles and
limitations as discussed below. The Council directed staff not to proceed at that time with
further studies relative to the project.
Background
The idea of transferring water, which would otherwise spill downstream, from Salinas Reservoir
to Whale Rock Reservoir has been proposed as a project in the past to meet future City water
demands. Salinas Reservoir spills frequently due to the large drainage area and favorable runoff
characteristics of the surrounding area. In contrast, Whale Rock Reservoir has only spilled six
times since it was constructed and may be able to store water in excess of the natural inflow to
the lake.
Based on an evaluation of historical hydrologic'information, there is the potential to transfer
significant quantities of water which would otherwise overtop the Salinas Dam spillway and flow
downstream. The actual quantity of water that could potentially be transferred annually would
be limited by two major interrelated factors: the conveyance system capacity and the City's I
BOARD of TRUSTEES
Geoffrey Land,Chair
k5lxJennifer Renzo,Vice-Chair
MEETING AGENDA Leslie Jones, Secretary
DATE �" 3-q ITEM # � Bob Wolf,Treasurer
El ONMENTAL CENTER David Braun
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Don Dollar
Bob Lavelle
Kimberly Rosa
Arlene Winn
Holly Ziegler
FVIQSVMI3d0O ��`O23 Mazch 1999 p uini OO OIdOl8Fnpa
O 113Ntll7 1
OMayor Allen Settle ❑ 110N0
San Luis Obispo City Council t
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re:Water Supply Study Session
Dear Mayor Settle and Councilmembers,
Water is an important issue for San Luis Obispo.We live in an and region that is
experiencing unprecedented growth pressures. It is your responsibility to balance the reality
of"supply"with the ever-increasing"demand". It is not an easy task,and I don't envy you. I
hope these comments will aid you in your deliberations.
State Water
City voters have rejected the State Water project twice.They also successfully mounted a
Referendum against Council action that ignored the first vote,and went to court over the
issue as well. It is pretty clear that,whatever your personal feelings are about State Water,it
is not an option for San Luis Obispo.
The State Water Project (SWP)is notoriously unreliable.The 1986 Evaluation of Local Water
ResawreAlternativer done by Leedshill-Herkonhoff for the City of San Luis Obispo states that
" Because the current average yield is considerably less than the future entitlement demands,
the SWP will frequently not be able to meet the contractors entitlement requests unless
major facilities are constructed" (page 3-4). As we all know,those "major facilities"were not
constructed. During the last drought,the SWP delivered 25%of its entitlements to
municipal customers.Monro Bay,recognizing its unreliability,has taken (and is paying for) a
double allotment as a hedge against the inevitable next drought_The notion that the City will
somehow be able to buy SWP water from farmers in the Central Valley during a drought is
doubtful since ag customers.are the first to be cut off in a drought.
It just doesn t make sense to rely upon an unreliable source of water for the City's
"Reliability Reserve" Kind of an oxymoron don't you thinks RECEIVED
MAR 2 3 1999
864 Osos Street,Suite C 544"1777
P.O.Box 1014 Fax 805/544-1871
San Luis Obispo,Califomia93406 Printed on/00•/ueefree.chlorinefreepaper e-mail ecoslo@slonet.org
ECOSLO Comments/Wa_ study Session,3-99 2
Safe Annual Yield of Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs
The following is from a letter to the City Council dated January 11, 1994,by Don Smith:
�. r .+'17 .. 3 t:
We experienced" vFyear �it- m q 9 $d"td'lblareh 1991, and were only saved from a sixth
and poniby se v rtb-year 27Vm-ghTby-the "Miracle Marcht:'rains of 1991.At the start of the drougbt in
19s6, city steanj offxdals assured the public that the Salinas and Whale Bock reservoirs would deliver
their full safe amualyield of 7,350 of for 6years of drought without water conservation, or a total of 44,.100
af. But in the 1986-91 ftve_year drought, they were able to deliver ony 30,000 af, or an average of only
6,000 afperyear. If the draught badgone a sixthyear, ony 2,000 of would have been available and the city
had planned ask the-residents to dearase.their water consumption by another 1501o, or to reduce water
consumption to about 40%of normal to prevent.the reservoirs fmm going dry before a desal plant could be put
into operation If the drought had gone a sixthyear, the average annual pmduction would have been only
5,333 of peryear.
These data show that the safe annualyield of the two reservoirs is notgreater than 5,333 af, and is probably
less
If Don's figures are accurate, and he is an engineer who served many years on the county's
Water Resource Advisory Committee,where does the 7,235 of figure as the combined safe
annual yield of Salinas and Whale Rock come from?
Nacimiento Water Project
As currently proposed, the Nacimiento Water Project (NWP)will release 16,500 of of water
onto a parched county that has no political will to control sprawl.This "growth inducement"
is identified in the DEIR as a Class I impact.The City of San Luis Obispo should step up to
the plate,acknowledge this impact and take steps to reduce it:
• The City should refuse to allow construction of pipelines within city limits that serve
areas outside of the URL.
• The City should lobby the other partners in the project to not participate with "paper'
water companies that will service sprawl growth.
• ' The City should.support an Urban Growth Boundary for SLO,and a"SOAR" type
initiative for SLO County to direct growth to existing urbanized areas.
I have attached my comments on the NWP DEIR,many of which concern the City of SLO.
Salinas Dam Expansion
I have,in the past,argued that the City should pursue this project,implement a model .
conservation program,and call it quits.This is still the environmentally and fiscally superior
approach,in my opinion,but it fails to address the concerns of the North County. I have
failed in my efforts to convince folks that this is the best option. So be it. If you make a
r
ECOSLO Comments/Water Study Session,3-99 3
decision to pursue the NWP,and that looks like that is the direction in which you are
headed, then please do not do both. Santa Margarita Lake is too special to sacrifice
unnecessarily.
Groundwater
The City should take another look at the well off of Los Osos Valley Road,and analyze how
much water could be safely pumped from that aquifer and how costly it would be to treat.
Richard Schmidt has been quoting a Boyle Engineering study that claims 2,000 to 3,000 of of
groundwater could be safely pumped from that aquifer annually. I am not familiar with that
study, but if it is accurate,there is your Reliability Reserve. I believe that other groundwater
sources could be utilized as well.The possibility of purchasing ag land within the greenbelt
area and pumping safe amounts of water needs to be explored.
Water Reuse Project
This is a good project,but enough water to maintain SLO Creek needs to be released, and
the Council needs to understand that while this water offsets use of potable supplies,it is not
potable water and can't be counted as such. In a serious drought,when we really heed the
water,landscaping is the first to go.The only benefit of this project in a drought is that it
might keep some turf area green.Also,in a drought,water use will go down,and the
amount of water available from this project will decrease as well. It's a good idea,but it is not
a "silver bullet".
Desalination
The technology for desal is improving,and costs are coming down. It may not be cost-
effective at this moment,but it probably will be in the not-too-distant future. SL-O is in a
good position to use desal since it already owns a pipeline out to the coast.This is an option
that should be actively explored and researched. Has the City researched this thoroughly? I
would suggest talking to Duke Power about co-locating with the Morro Bay Plant,and direct
staff to really take a hard look at this as a long-term water supply. You might be surprised at
what you find out
Conclusion
San Luis Obispo is in overdraft Attached is a 1989 T-T article that explains how the city was
in overdraft in the'80's.The City has not brought one single new source of water on line
since this article was written. The City has not brought one new source of water online since
the drought;since the day this Council was faced with emergency desal;not one. Lots of
numbers get kicked around,but that fact remains. Not only has the City not found new
water,but also it has approved new development and new annexations.The next drought,
and there will be a next drought,is going to be worse than the last one.
It is true that per capita water use is currently lower than pre-drought figures,but that use is
rising. Given that City revenues from selling water rise in proportion to the amount of water'
ECOSLO Comments/Wa tudy Session,3-99 4
sold,and given the need to raise money to pay for new water projects,it raises the question
as to whether the City has purposely relaxed conservation programs in order to sell more
water.
What I would suggest,at this time,is that the City hires an outside consultant to do a "water
audit" of supply and demand in San Luis Obispo. Staff, and the public,have been kicking
around the same numbers,and making the same assumptions for years now.The City is
playing pretty close to the edge,and I think it might be a good idea for the City get a "thud
opinion" as to just exactly where that edge might be. The decisions you are making are
expensive ones, not just fiscally,but environmentally and socially as well. It would be best to
have the latest and most objective information possible to base decisions on, and to avoid
unpleasant surprises...like the last drought.
Thanks for wading through all this, and good luck.
Sincerely,
Pat Veesart
Executive Director
ECOSLO
Attachments: A. Future Water Supply Availability of the State Water Project-July, '98
B. SLO Gamble over Water_T-T, 5/1/89
C. Sierra Club Comments on NWP DEIR- 10/15/97
�1 tl
Future Water Supply Availability
on the State Water ,Project
4
ENTITLEMENT REOUESTS/ _�-
2000 a 3.5B MAF i
.-. 1 990 : 2.93 MAF
t
– 1
J Q 3
d
p„ F.IRM YIELD 1990
'
M 1990 v 2.28 MAF '
(n W 2000 : 2.24 htAF
-- 2000
Iw I ----- ------------
~ W
Q 2
3 �
Q -
I 3z
(n O Water Supply Avoilahilily Based On:
J J 1990 a Existing -Facilities Plus
I Q J North Boy Aaueduct, Phose a
ZOverland Water Supply for Sherman Island
Z I
Q Z 2000= 1990 Facilities Plus
' — Additional Units at Banks Delta Pumping Plant
(operated to 1981 USCE criteria)
Coastal Branch, Phase II
I I '
0 0
100 80 60 40 20 1
` PERCENT OF YEARS IN WHICH AVAILABLE
i �tl.� 1 �2
I �
3-6
I Figure 3-2
V ,
COUNTY TELEGRAW
ne1
founty of San Luis y MONDAY, MA
25Q *' Y 1; 1989
Obispo Dail
r le'
. . { .T� ,... Yra,
may} : overwater
C' C
San Luis Obispo continue to exceed its
t� •fp 6 f, -; F C I ty pinned I tS safe annual yield?
Bill Hetland, the city's utilities direc-
.• hopes on a n end to ter, said the City Council chose to
t
the d C O U g ht — exceed the safe annual yield because it
was seeking more sources of w' I
4, such as well water ind expanding
and lost b I g capacity of Santa Margarita Lake.
"We recognized that by doing•so we j
By David Eddy take a certain risk,"said iletiand."The
ti Telegram-Tribune unfortunate thing is it corresponded
almost exactly with the dry cycle"
If San Luis Obispo's 25 percent water Such a three-year drought occurs only
rationing is inconvenient,wait until this. about four times a century, said Het-
fall when usage maybe cut 50 percent land.
That's when city.water supplies will "It's not that the city didn't know what I
probably dip below the critical level. it was do-mg - it did know. We knew i
�." , v.... Cutting water usage in half would mean that if we got caught ih a dry cycle,we
no watering,not flushing the toilet ilter would have to ration, he said i
every use and dinners served on paper "Maybe in retrospect we would have
plates. made different decisions,but hindsight
What happened? How did San Luis is always 20 20:'
Obispo end up in this boat when the rest Said Mayor Ron Dun "n: Each time it
- _ of the county hasn't had to institute any (the safe annual yield)was exceeded,it
rationing plans,much less a possible 50 was hoped the reservoirs would be
z leashed Unfortunately, during the
percent
Deputy County Engineer Clinton las three years the rainfall was not
`� -�-'�-=•�-=•=-- .rr="'�''=� Milne: "They (city officials), in effect, sufficient to replenish them."
ambled on the weather." But Dunn said of the council's
gambled
last
they calculated risk "Pm still not sure itwas
th
LFor five consecutive years, San Luis a mistake-"
Obispo has exceeded its safe annual If a mistake was made,it was in no
yield-the amount of water the city can instituting a stronger conservation plan
=s use each year and still get through a six- in 1988,said Dunin.That plan,expected
-- "' �'rY year drought. to cut use by 25 percent,failed misem
During the past three of those years, bly.
the city has experienced a drought A building moratorium would
Without the drought, the city would be placed the city in economic.penl,
in fine shape.
But the question remains: Why did Please see Roulette,Bac Page
:: .. . .', ice•:_•r:
u I ette
Continued from A-1 different view of the situation. water available, but other factors such .
e
high unemployment,said Dunin. Although he agreed that the depen- as sewage plant capacity.
dency oil the two reservoirs should have Didisagreed, saying that the
"You can't stop grooving altogether." t '
been investigated many years ago, he growth management ordinance is a
The decision was made to stick to lite X.
said more stringent growth restrictions reasonable law that works.
growth management ordinance, passed
should have been instituted. Water should not be used as a tool to
in 1982,that/units growth to 2 percent in An ordinance passed b the council in control growth," Dunin
the 1980s and/percent in the 19905. P Y �'
Another complicating factor was that July 1988 that tied the number of Now,San Luis Obispo city officials are ys>; <r >; x ht>A <:.a .::.•;:v:
building permits to the amount of water relying on the willingness
g p } g guess bf its tesi-
the city didn't have a handle an its z ;
increasing daytime population, he said. availahle should have been passed dents — and the threat of huge
r
seveal years ago,said Settle. surcharges on their water bills — to
With more jobs available and less g g <<�{
housing,•the number of commuters shot He conceded, however, that it would help the city pull through the drought AM/FM Ster
up to the point that there are now have been difficult to pass such an And the prospect ect cf 50 percent
??
anvwhere from 15,000 to 30,000 people ordinance when the reservoirs were rationing looms on the horizon. That
pouring into the city each day. nearly full decision wv711ikely have to be made this
Dunin said much of the problem is And Settle said a 1982 growth man- fall. It is complicated by the fact that it
due to the fact that the city hasn't tried agement ordinance is not realistic may have to be made just before the I
very hard to get more water in the past because it is based on percentages —it rainy season — and no one knows what
few decades. isn't tied to the amount of water that will bring.
"This,ORY Council is the fust to really available.
do st- ng to get new sources (of All growth ordinances should be Another intriguing complication is Dual cassette copie_
water _'said resource-based,said Settle.They should that there is an election his fall Three ' tapes In sequence.
Councilman Allen Settle has a slightly take into account not only the amount of out of the five council seats will be open. + "_
g Y Y P Ing 27/s high spec
Drought: Why South County's sitting pretty VHS VCR
Why do South County communities said._All of the communites have stuck acre-feet. ®1 C
have a surplus of water when San Luis by the.resolutions. Even if the county agreed, San Luis
Dbispo faces a critical shortage? South County communities rely most- Obispo couldn't get any help from Lopez
"They've been better planners," said ly on Lopez Lake for their water. Lake because there's no way to deliver Easy on-screen pro-
Clinton Milne,deputy county engineer. Instead of being in trouble, Milne said the surplus aster. «s gramming of t-year/
The South County communities all the county Flood Control and Water Other communities in the county 6-6ent timer 122-
passed a resolution in 1983 agreeing not Conservatiop. District, which owns the haven't been forced to ration, although channel cable-
to exceed their safe annual yields, he lake,recen[v declared a surplus of 1,388 three do have building moratoriums. compatible tuner.HQ.
fl6-513
Remote batleries extra
Color.TWMor
Join An Award Winning Teami : Save -$1(
3999:
Re
The Telegram-Tribune, in cooperation with the Paso 499
Remote Control
Robles-Chamber of Commerce and the wineries of
Low As S20 Per Month.
Paso Robles invite you to be a part of the 7th Annual 100-Watt St
Paso Robles Wine Festival program. The program, in -
addition to being inserted into the Telegram-Tribune,
8,500 I
7,500 -- V�a�e • - - - s
v V
:... r :.:�.. , 7,000
I .N
r..
C i
.„:•':' '.>i” .. �}�l �i °i�'ii y,�:iii,';kyr.. �����3m+'ty���` .64Gq �: S';
r. wn 6,500 .{ .s. ` f Safe Annual Yield
lie r
6,000 y'g�re�'. e.. Z:.•
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
I
Source:City of SLO Ken McColl/Telegram-Tribune
r r•
,
Safe yield : It could be worse
San Luis Obispo's water consumption Hetland_
would have exceeded its safe annual ' However, the calculations were done
attina welcomes husband Michael to surprise party. yield by much more than 5 percent in several years ago when the reservoirs
1987 and 1988 if the safe annual yield were full.
figure hadn't been raised. Hetland said a good argument could
The safe annual yield s the amount of be made that the savings can only be
water the city can use each year and realized after the reservoirs have filled
all
still get through a six-year drought. up. Until then the savings is >a^"ly
the
� e spurs. recIn 1987,the figure was boosted by 500 theoretical
acre-feet because the city determined If the 500 acre-feet were subtra.,.ed
that by using its reservoirs cooperative- from the safe annual yield for the two
sed. real issue is whether _ wa have sensi- ly, it could save that much water each ears it's been used,then the city would
:n rude and abusive to ble management of growth and develop- year,This aid id possiblebecausebecause irector ill I etland. have exceeded the safe yield by 13
who have asked questions ment voirs are so different,said Ifetthe percent in 1987 and 12 percent in 1988.
g use No. 2: I have learned from my past Santa Margarita Lake fills up much According to city ordinance, the sate
.d the blame to associates mistakes." annual yield cant be exceeded by more
Mose It In the approximately 185-word state- more quickly than Whale Rock Reser- than 13 percent
gs
uwhile a teacher and meat,Blakelysays: Reser-
voir because its smaller,it draws water
ect and confidence and Our county From a 112-square-mile area Instead of The 500 acre-feet added in.1988 was
p " ty s facing serious dare 20 square miles,and because rainfall is
gild not be effective as a {ems and time s running out we dare q for the wells that have been dt'lbed
not dwell on past mistakes, but must generally much higher inland than it is The city now expects to get as much
his response,says . look toward the future." along the coast. as 2,000 acre-feet of well water, but
I not sign this petition for look
That means the city can save water by Iletland said the safe annual yield figure
says "Seeking revenge for past
mistakes denies that a person .can using Santa Margarita Lake first so no will not be rased as long as the drought
past Is not the Issue.The change and productively serve society." water is lost over the spillway, said lasts.
pan : Some inmates ROL others `tense '
riday. Sitting in the jail's Kansas Avenue Needham said jailing smokers and walls,"said the inmate
okers hold another view: parking lot munching on a burger while taking away their cigarettes would Karen Snedden, 25, is a 12 year
rd," said:the relative of a he waited to see his wife, the husband increase stress levels in an "already. smoker.
Jailed an a felony. "He's said the smoke was hard to take. ' stressful situation." The inmate said of the 32 or so female
about It because he can't "It's reaQy terrible in there because At the least, say inmates, smoking inmates in jail Friday,only a couple
ing)." ' - there's all kinds of smoke and it really should be allowed in an area outside the don't smoke."They should have an area
mate who derelined to gags her,"he said. jal1• for smoking outside,"said Snedden.
df told his wife during inmate Jollyne Needham, 37, of Los "I don't even think the people who "It's hard enough we have to dr r
that Inmates who smoke Osos was upset about the ban. don't smoke think it's (the ban) fair," time, but ft s impossible,"
"about the ban- "It sucks. Granted we've all done said Needham. Snedden.
ate's relative agreed that something wrong to be in here,but the A non-smoker who didn't want to be Sheriff Ed Williams issued the order,
ucotme habit might be staff will have a smoking area and then identified agreed citing health and safety concerns, and
ds wife favored the ban they get to go home and smoke," said "I feel it's making a lot of people in costs.
to cause a really big Needham,who said she's doing time for here tense,and I don't feel goad about Inmates say the reality of the ban
s going to get rowdy in a drunken driving conviction. being in here with tense people," said began to hit closer to home last week
nn:wn •n w..� FAn..`-." Vnn.;,,m ie n ^^..•+ear emn4n� whn thn 15•vnar•niel :nmaln ennrina w fnlnn.r •,hon Ihn iail mmmieenry -tnnnn.l
rC �I
e t"
w
SIERRA CLUB ' SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER
�s Al P.O Box 15755 • San Luis Obispo,California 93406y
Phone: (805) 544.1777 • Fax: (805) 544-18.11 1
http://www.sierriclub.org/chapters/sintalucia :as
15 October, 1997 !
County of San Luis Obispo
Department of Planning and Building
Attention: Nancy E. Rollman
Room 310
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408-2040
RE: Draft EIR, Nacimiento Water Project
Dear Ms. Rollman:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft EIR. Please accept
the following comments on behalf of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra
Club.
General Observations and Comments
We are quite concerned _gout the issue of a full human ;contact reservoir
being used as a direct domestic water supply. Certain human-borne
viruses are quite resistant to current water treatment technology and
there is evidence that viruses in general are mutating and becoming even
more .virulent and resistant. This is of great concern since the water. from
this project is to be transported across several watersheds and has the .
potential to infect the water supplies of of several of the communities
participating in the project (see page 2-53, paragraph 3).: Merely passing a
bill in the State Legislature does not make this concern go away.
In addition to the Recreation Plan that is to be included in the FEIR, we
would like to see a Watershed Management Plan that discusses existing
and potential point and non-point sources of pollution and suggests how, to
manage the watershed in. the best way to reduce pollution and siltation. At
16,200 af, this project is, by far. the largest water project in San Luis
Obispo County and has tremendous growth-inducing potential. If future
growth, dependent on this project, is to be reliably servedi it is not too
soon to begin a comprehensive Watershed Management Program.
...To ea,lore, enjoy, and prntect the nation's scenic resources...
Somewhere in the FEIR there should be a discussion about unallocated
reserves and how they will be handled and paid for. It is' the position of
the Sierra Cluh that the rusts . associated with unallocated reserves arc the
responsibility of project participants and should be. included in the cost of
the project. Those costs can be recovered as water is sold in the future. It
is not fair to expect county residents, many of whom live in communities
that will not receive NWP water, to pay for unallocated reserves. County
residents are .still paying for unallocated reserves of State Water Project
water even though many of' them are not, and will not, receive any of the
water.
Under no circumstances should the disposition of unallocated reserves be
deeded over to anyone other than the County. It is the County that has the
authority and the responsibility to manage growth in tho unincorporated
areas of SLO County. Purveyors. looking to recover costs, would be willing
to sell water to anyone, .anywhere. The County needs to preserve its
authority over water resources in the rural areas of this county to protect
the interests of till county residents. The issue of unallocated reserves'
needs to be dealt with, tip front, and included in the FE1R'.'
Section 2 - Project Description
2. 1 Project Objectives
The water from the NWP will be used not only for "domestic use", but for
industrial, and probably, on a very limited basis, for agricultural uses as
well. In other words, industry, as well as. domestic users,' will greatly
benefit from this project. The Agriculture Industry will hen.efit directly
from reduced groundwater pumping by domestic users, leaving relatively
cheap groundwater for ag operations while domestic users pay capital
costs for expensive water projects.
2.3.2.7 Reach G (Cuesta Tunnel to Highland Drive)
Of the 6 "Airport participants" having water treated at the CMC WTP, 5
propose to serve customers outside of San Luis Obispo's Urban Reserve
Line. This is classic sprawl and violates both city and county policies. It is
notable that the .reason why CMC has been approached for water treatment
J
is because the City of' SLO refuses (so far) to treat or wheel water for use
outside of its Urban Reserve Line.
2.3.6. 1 Water 'T'reatment Proposed t Undo Phase I
For those purveyors that propose to delay construction of 'a WTP and use
groundwater recharge and extraction instead, it is very important that the
amount of recharge be accurately defined and that the amount of water
sold be no more than the net amount added to the systema Losses in
transmission and evaporation must be accounted for.
As stated earlier, we are quite concerned about the potential for
groundwater contamination and would like to see an expanded discussion
about this potential impact in the FEIR.
2.3.6.2 Water Treatment Proposed Under Phase II
In this section there is a discussion about the chemicals used to treat water
and the hazardous nature of those chemicals. How will the use, handling,
and storage of these chemicals be monitored? This not so much a concern
with the legitimate water purveyors, such as the municipalities, but this
project proposes to deliver raw water to many "paper" water, companies
that may not have the experience or expertise to safely handle these
dangerqus chemicals. Who will be liable when accidents occur?
2.5 Discretionary Actions Required
There seems to be some question as to whether, or how G.C. 53091 applies
to this project. We would like to have a definate answer to this in the
FEIR.
2.5.1 Reach A through Reach G
If the City of Atascadero would require grading permits for pipeline
installation outside of public road ROW's, would the City of San Luis Obispo
also require grading permits as parts of Reach H are outside of public road
RO W's?
2.5.2 Reaches H and K
Reaches H and K are being proposed solely for the delivery of water to
purveyors outside of the SLO City Limit and, for the most part, outside of
the City's Urban Reserve Line. Chapter 13. 16 of the City's .Municipal Code
states that "...the city shall not approve any provision or entitlement to
water or sewer service for the use or benefit of properties outside of the
city limits." l►nless the City ❑mends its Municipal Code. it would he
forbidden by its own ordinance to permit Reaches H and K.
The construction of Reaches H and K, and the subsequent delivery of water
to properties outside of the City of San Luis Obispo, also violates many
goals and policies related to Greenbelts, Land Use, compact communities,
delivery of services, and AV policies of the San Luis Obispo Area Plan.
2.5.4 Water Treatment Plants
Would it not be the County Planning Commission that would be required to
make findings of General Plan Conformity?
2.5.5 Summary of Permit Requirements
There is no mention of the City of San Luis Obispo. Wouldn't permits be
required for construction of pipelines and facilities within city limits that
are not along public road ROW's? Table 2.5-1 does mention Road
Encroachment permits for the City of SLO. This should be in the Summary
along with any other required permits.
Section 3 Project Alternatives
3.1.2. 1 Reliability of the SWP and the NWP
The reliability of the NWP using the MCWRA's current flood control and
conservation release schedules should be modeled and included in the
FE1R.
3.2 No Project Alternative . .
It is wrong to make the assumption that growth, and the need for water
resources, will continue to grow at current rates despite resource
constraints. It is this way of thinking that has brought us the "Los Angeles"
style of development that is heavily dependent on imported resources.
Communities need to identify which resources are necessary to support
their desired quality of life while protecting species diversity, healthy
watersheds, aesthetic considerations. etc., and then allow for a level growth
within those constraints. We are under no obligation .to destroy the natural
j
resources of this county to accommodate new growth. The No Project
alternative would be a viable alternative if county residents- determined
that the toll on the environment is too hid=h a price to pay for new growth.
S:ru Luis OhiSho ('onnty recently -,vcalhered the worst drought in hiss rY
with current water supplies. The NWl' will be: used primarily for new
growth.
3.4 Alternative Pipeline Routes
The Sierra Club agrees that pipeline routes should follow ,road ROW'S and
be constructed in already urbanized and disturbed areas as much as
possible to reduce environmental impacts. Traffic delays due to
construction are but one part of the price paid for this project.
3.5 Alternative WTP Site Locations
The City of SLO's Municipal Code Section 13. 16 could be interpreted as not
allowing participation by the city in the NWP since the project includes
provisions to deliver water outside of ,the city's corporate boundary in
violation of both city and county policies. Using. city ratepayer's money to
accommodate sprawl development on .the city's Southern boundary is
clearly. not in the best interest of city residents and appears to violate city
ordinance. The upgrading of the CHIC WTP, and the construction' of treated
water pipelines should not be a part of the NWP. Instead, the purveyors
utilizing treated water, from the: Ch1C WTP should contract directly fur
treatment and build their own pipelines.
The Santa Margarita Ranch should be responsible for treating its own
water, separate from the community . of Santa Margarita. If the Santa
Margarita ranch wants urban services, ' they should plan on locating future
development contiguous with the community and requesting water
service. The county should not be providing urban services outside of
existing communities or forming partnerships with private developers who
are forcing sprawl development, and related impacts, onto existing
communities by intimidation. This is more sprawl development and
violates county goals and policies.
3.8 City of SLO Airport Area Exchange Agreement
The NWP should not have as a project objective "...obtaining of
supplemental water supplies .for every participating NWP purveyor."
There has to be criteria for participation in this project, including
compliance with city and county land use policies. Delivering NWP water to
land .zoned AG directly adjacent to city limits, and outside of the city's
Urban Reserve Line, is not acceptable under city or county policy. The
County needs to he 11101e selerlive ahcnit who (wis NWP «•rater. 11' there arc.
not enough legitimate participants at this time, the project should be
delayed until there are.
3.9 Groundwater Replenishment Policy Alternative
The recommendation of the WRAC regarding Supplemental Water
Contracts should be required. by contract. as a condition of participation in
this project.
3. 10.2 Desalination
There must be an expanded discussion about desalination in the FEIR. The
City of. SLO already has a pipeline .out to the coast. A thorough analysis of
cost and environmental impacts should be looked at to determine if it
wouldn't make more sense to use De-Sal for purveyors South of Cuesta
Grade. A recent article in'Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Volume 62-Number 6, 1996) claims $800 per of water costs for De-Sal
with new (and improving) technology.
3.10.4 Increased Water Conservation
Water consumption was as low as 85 gallons per capita In San Luis Obispo
during the drought. That figured has climbed steadily as the City of SLO
has relaxed conservation efforts. Current usage is up around 120 gallons
per capita. The goal of City water policy is to raise consumption to 145
gallons per capita in order to pay for the NWP. The cost of this project is
directly short-circuiting water conservation efforts in San Luis Obispo, and
probably in other communities as well, and this should be identified as an
impact. Believe it or not, supply really does affect demand.
Section 4 - Environmental Setting
4.1.3 Land Use
SLO County is mentioned as one of the " 10 fastest . growing counties" in
California despite resource constraints. We are operating "in the red",
overdrafting groundwater supplies to fuel growth, .and then counting on
major surface water projects like this one to put us back. "in the black."
Throughout this document is the theme of constant growth, despite
resource constraints. This is like someone running their credit card up to
the liniit 111(1 hohin�, they Will son►edly win the lottery. This kind of' short-
sighted planning must stop. Growth must happen .within the constraints of
existing resources.
Section 5 - Environmental Analysis
5.2. 1 . 1 Lake Naci►niento
We are concerned about the presence of Mercury and other metals in the
water supply, along with coliform counts and organic compounds. Again,
there appears to be a need for a Watershed Management 'Plan, and strict
water quality monitoring, especially when water levels are low, to insure
the health and safety of the public.
5.2. 1.3 Reaches G through K. COE Spur, Existing Chorro Valley Pipeline, and
the Los Osos Spur
Since NWP water is proposed to be mixed with Chorro Creek and Chorro
Reservoir, water quality information about Chorro Creek :and Chorro
Reservoir must be included in the FEIR. We are quite concerned about the
mixing.,of raw NWP water into Chorro Creek and the potential for
contamination and would like to see more information on this in the 1 EAR.
That "...no water supply monitoring information on bacteria, metals, other
inorganic constituents, organic compounds, or radioactivity is available,
either before treatment at the CMC WTP (i.e., within Chorro Reservoir) or
after treatment" is pretty amazing given that the water is consumed by
thousands of' prisoners and staff at CMC. This appears to be, at a minimum,
a violation of state law.
5.2.3.1 Construction Impacts
Have the impacts to the creeks and rivers mentioned in this section been
analyzed in light of the recent listing of Steelhead Trout?:
5.2.4.2 Mitigation for Impacts from Phase I and II Operations
5.2n We would like to see specific numbers here like: Water deliveries to
project participants will be reduced by 25% until lake conditions return to
higher than 748 ft. above sea level." This mitigation measure means
nothing unless there are specific numbers and mandatory compliance.
5.2s Again, a comprehensive Watershed Management Ilan is in order Bele.
and anywhere managing the Lake Nacimiento watershed is mentioned as a
mitigation.
5.3 Transportation
This section only looks at the impact associated with construction and
operation of the project, not at the long-term cumulative impact to
circulation that the project will have on San Luis Obispo County. There is
only passing mention in Chapter 6 of traffic impacts that are a result of
this project. There needs to be a more thorough analysis in the FEIR of
countywide circulation impacts from this project including costs, air
quality, quality of life, and possible mitigation. This is a Program EIR and is
supposed to look at the "big picture". Section 5.3 only looks at the "little
picture."
5.8.2.8 Salinas Area Plan (Reaches F & G)
San Luis Obispo Area Plan (Reaches G. H, & K)
There Ire many goals and policies in the San Luis Obispo Area Plan
(SLOAP) that discourage sprawl development and encourage the protection
of Agriculture. A distressingly biased selection of one policy to base
compliance on is quite disturbing. It is not consistent with the SLOAP to .
supply water to areas outside of the San Luis Obispo's Urban Reserve that
is obviously going to be used for urban growth. It is not consistent with the
SLOAP to supply 955 of of water to the Edna Valley MWC so they can
develop land, zoned for agriculture, into resorts and golf courses, outside of
SLO's URL, but immediately adjacent to the city. Please re-read the SLOAP
and include ALL the goals and policies that the NWP is inconsistent with
and include this information in the FEIR. You might also want to look at the
City of San Luis Obispo's planning policies that discourage sprawl,
encourage the protection of ag land, promote compact communities, seek
hard urban edges, and forbid delivery of urban services. to areas outside of
their city limits.
5. 10.1.3 Fire Protection Services
5. 10.1.4 Law enforcement
J
There needs to be more information in the FEIR, either here or in chapter
6. about the long-term cumulative impacts that the NWP will have
countywide, on. police and fire protection. More growth means more need
for services. Since residential growth, and most commercial growth, docs
not pay for itself, how will the county and other jurisdictions provide for
the safety of county residents? What will be the cost?
Section 6 Growth Inducement
The Sierra Club would like to compliment the drafters of this EIR on this .
section. While we believe that this section is inadequate, and needs more
discussion about the long-term effects and costs of growth] in the areas of
traffic, air quality, police and fire services, loss of farmland, loss of wildlife
habitat, and socio-economic impacts, we do believe that this chapter
clearly and fairly presents the growth-inducing impacts of this project.
The growth-inducing impacts are a grave concern to the Sierra Club. Slow
growth, over a period of time, and at a pace that absorbs impacts as they
occur, and within the constraints imposed by the wishes of the community
is desirable. But growth that occurs too fast, or in the wrong places is
undesirable and needs to be stopped. The need to pay for this expensive
water project will be an .incentive for purveyors to sella lot of water as
fast as possible. They will be less discriminating about who they sell to and
where the water goes, especially after current ratepayers get their bills.
The only way to mitigate this negative impact .is for the county to follow its
General Plan policies governing growth, stopping sprawl, protection of ag
land; reducing automobile traffic, etc. These must be strictly adhered to, or
else this project will upen the floodgates to a future that nobody in this
county claims to want.
The growth-inducing impacts are significant, and are not completely
mitigatable. However, we do believe that some of the impacts could be
mitigated as follows:
NWP water should not be delivered to purveyors for use outside of
existing urbanized areas. In other words, the purveyors that will use this
water for sprawl development, or for urbanization of ag land, will not be
allowed to participate in this project. We would suggest deleting:
• Santa Margarita Ranch MW - 600 of
• Afuero de Chorro WC - 32 of
• East Airport Area MWC - 80 of
' ( b
0
• Edna Valley MWC - 955 of
CSA 22 and Fierro Lane WC would be prohibited from selling water outside
of SLO's URL and would agree to be served by the City Of SLO upon
annexation.
the elimination of this small amount of water (1667 af), while having little
effect on the overall project, would have a tremendous benefit by reducing
sprawl growth and keeping the growth associated with this project in the
urbanized areas where it belongs. This would also eliminate most of the
"paper" water companies and leave the distribution of NWP water to
legitimate purveyors who have the experience to monitor water quality
and are less likely to have accidents.
We do not believe the County should be in partnership with private
developers who propose growth that is not in the best interest of county
residents, and is in violation of planning goals to reduce sprawl and protect
ag land.
The Sierra Club cannot support this project, and, indeed, will actively
oppose this project, if it facilitates sprawl and the urbanization of ag land.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR.
�-U
P t Veesart, Chairman
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
MEE, a AGENDA
DATES ITEM #__l___
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
U
RCO.UNCIL ❑CDD DIR
Match 22, 1999 [;CAO ❑FIN DIR
(,CACAO ❑FIRE CHIEF
4VORNEY ❑PW DIR
Re:"Water Reliability Reservew— March 23 Agenda CLERICIODIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑!.:u!dT TEAM ❑RS�CC DIR
p�C.FtGnd�rsa, I911TIL DI
To the City Council: ❑' ❑PERS I l
"State water."The City Council should not even be considering"state water"as an option for providing
part of the city's water supply.Twice in this decade this city's people have voted down the"state project,"
so why isn't it dead?What sort of representative democracy do we have in this city? Is it true that a"yes"
vote means yes, but that a"no"vote just means you'll have to vote again,and again, and again,till you
finally get it"right"? Is it any wonder that citizens regard their"representative"government with cynicism
when this sort of thing goes on?
There is no need to be considering the"state project"as a source for the 2,000 acre foot emergency
water reserve, because we already have a better emergency source. (It is also irresponsible: Remember
how the"state project"utterly failed during the last drought?The state project is an acknowledged
reliability turkey.The project is so overcommitted the San Francisco Chronicle reports it will be unable to
meet its delivery contracts nine years out of ten during periods of normal rainfall, and in a drought, it
cannot be counted on at all. Do those who propose this water source figure we don't need emergency
water during a drought?And what about the economic consequences of"state water?"Is its"cheapness"
why cities like Solvang have pulled out all the legal stops to try to break their state water contract which is
bankrupting both city and rate payers?)
The better option staff neglects to mention.There is a much, much better solution for providing an
emergency supply of 2,000 acre feet,and we already have it. But beware—the city is about to give this
supply away in a silly chase for more shopping centers and sales tax revenue.
A pool of ground water plenty large enough to supply the 2,000 acre foot reserve sits beneath the
undeveloped farmland bounded by Madonna Road and Highway 101,commonly called the Dalidio Farm,
but actually comprising several ownerships.This area,which has some of the best farmland in the world,
is also the focus of on-going community debate about the preservation of our most characteristic and
significant agricultural landscapes.Meanwhile,the city is madly processing development proposals for the
area, including one to double the size of the existing Madonna Road shopping centers which are already
more than halt vacant.
A ground water study by Boyle Engineering concluded several years ago that the city could pump 2,000
to 3,000 acre feet per year from Dalidlo on a sustained basis, and that the underground aquifer would
refill quickly even in years of only moderate rainfall.The water is there,just beneath the surface. It doesn't
need to be imported from anywhere (relying on costly and polluting electricity-guzzling pumps to get the
water over mountains). It costs practically nothing to pump this water from the ground—we could even
use windmills,and treatment facilities, according to past city reports, could be provided for well under$1
million. In fact, emergency wells in this area saw the city through its last drought.
But aquifer preservation and city water wells are not compatible with the contemplated development of
the land's surface.We get one or the other, not both.The land must be kept open if it is to be our
municipal water reserve.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 1999
SLO CITY COUNCIL
The city should purchase this land outright.using Its water development funds.to protect Its
existing emergency water reserve.This is by far the cheapest solution for providing a reliable
emergency water source. It is also the best solution,for it makes us self-reliant for our ememencv water
supply and leaves us free from entanglements with other city. co m y. state and federal bureaucracies,
not to mention litigation,which muddy-- and may i tti� matey destroy—all other water supply schemes.
A bonus of this plan Is Its great environmental benefits.The city's best ag land gets preserved, and
can, if needed,provide a reliable emergency local food supply should the lines of commerce ever break.
The scenery which the city's people love, and by which freeway travelers distinguish our city from Studio
City,Santa Maria and San Jose,gets preserved.We are saved from a Santa Maria-like blight of shopping
centers stretching along our arterials and our freeway.
This plan is the proverbial'Wein-win"situation. We help keep San Luis Obispo the beautiful place it is. All
in the interest of providing a thrifty source of emergency water.
This is the way to go. Let's do it. Let's buy the Dalidio Water Reserve, and keep it in public ownership for
all time. A council which executes such a plan will be long celebrated for Its foresight and for Its
Rgsltive contributions to the city's future.
Richard Schmidt
PS.The only significant objection I've heard to using the Dalidio ground water for a reliability reserve is
offered by reference to the Bear Valley Shopping Center lawsuit.This is a non-starter for two reasons.
First, even 9 the lawsuit were legitimate, risking having to pay off its damages once every 25 to 100 years
would still make this a very cheap water source when compared to the alternatives. Second,the city lost
this suit not because of the merit of the plaintiff's case but because it failed to defend itself competently by
marshaling expert witnesses who could have demolished the plaintiffs'shaky claims. Instead,the attorney
hired by the city(who is now a convicted felon), made ludicrous"defense"arguments that the city had
"pueblo rights"to pump water which superseded the rights of surface owners to be free of building
subsidence, an argument so off the wall that it was being publicly ridiculed by other attorneys from the
"defense"attorney's firm even while the case was in court. (Pueblo rights are an established fact for only
a few cities;San Luis Obispo is not one of them—this proposition of the"defense"was on its face
absurd.)The"loss"of this lawsuit through failure to mount a good defense simply is not a legitimate
reason to shun this ground water as a"reliability reserve."The positive economic,environmental and
water security advantages of creating a Dalldlo Water Reserve remain unblemished by this rogue
11 ti tg� lon•