Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 01-28-93 22 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON JANUARY 28, 1993 The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in an adjourned regular session at the Velvet Turtle, 100 Chilpancingo Parkway, Pleasant Hill, County of Contra Costa, State of California, at 6:30 p.m. on January 18, 1993, for a joint meeting of the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County. The Secretary of the District noted the attendance of the following Board Members. PRESENT: Members: Dalton, Hockett, Menesini ABSENT: Members: Rainey, Clausen Members Rainey and Clausen had previously advised staff that they would be unable to attend this meeting and had requested that they be excused. 1. INTRODUCTIONS In the absence of Chair Wallis, Vice Chair Starita welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County. The representatives of each agency and members of the public attending t.he meeting introduced themselves. 2. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 22. 1992 MINUTES It was moved- by Mr. Dave Requa, of Contra Costa Water District, and seconded by Mr. Alfred Granzella, of West Contra Costa Sanitary District, that the minutes of October 22, 1992 be approved as presented. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. 3. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Vice Chair Starita nominated Ms. Barbara Hockett, of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, to serve as Chair of the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County for 1993. Ms. Hockett declined the nomination. Vice Chair Starita nominated Dr. Mario Menesini, of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, to serve as Chair of the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County for 1 993. Dr. Menesini was elected by unanimous acclamation. Vice Chair Starita congratulated Ms. Cynthia Andelin and Mr. David Bauer, of Ironhouse Sanitary District, on their coming nuptials. Vice Chair Starita nominated Mr. David Bauer, of Ironhouse Sanitary District, to serve as Vice Chair of the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County for 1993. Mr. Bauer was elected by unanimous acclamation. 4. OVERVIEW OF THE MILLER BILL Mr. Austin Nelson, of Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), stated that being in the water business these days is to be in a period of great uncertainty. The State of California has been in a drought for the last six years. In spite of the rain during the last few days, the drought is not over. The Endangered Species Act has implications for water supply that are yet to be seen. In October 1992, the Central Valley Project Act, HR 429, was passed. This carried its own implications for water supply. The major purpose of the Central Valley Project Act is to protect and restore natural habitat for wildlife in the Central Valley and a portion of the Trinity areas to achieve a doubling of the natural proliferation of endangered fish. This is based on the average population from 1 967 to 1991. The goal is ambitious and covers four races of salmon, steelhead, striped bass, and American shad. The program is to be developed and implemented by the end of 1995. 01 28 93 23 The law also envisions dedication of 800,000 acre feet of the Central Valley Project to these fish and wildlife purposes. The yield of the Central Valley Project is five to six million acre feet per year. The manner of use of the 800,000 acre feet of water is to be specified by Fish and Wildlife Services in consultation with California Fish and Game. There is an absolute minimum even in the most critical water supply years. The Project does get credit for water required to meet the Endangered Species Act and credit under the terms of Decision 1630. Because these two laws do not exactly mesh, that credit will not be completely effective. Mr. Nelson reported that the Secretary of the Interior has been directed to improve and replace screens at the Tracy Plant. Pulse water flows will be put in place to aid migration of juvenile fish. A temporary control structure is to be installed on Shasta Dam to protect spawning in the Sacramento River. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior has been directed to install fish screen on Contra Costa Canal and funding has been provided for that purpose. The Act sets up a restoration fund of up to $50 million per year, with Central Valley Project water and power contracts directed to pay up to $30 million of that total. The cost to Contra Costa Water District is approximately $12 per acre foot. The average residential water user uses about two-thirds of an acre foot per year so the cost per residential user is about $8 per year or 67 cents per month. The Act includes transfer provisions, including transfer outside the Central Valley Project service area. Those outside the Central Valley Project who will be transferring water will pay $25 per acre foot. The bottom line from the standpoint of a water supplier, is that we can expect increasing frequency of water shortage because of water allocated to other purposes and we can expect increased costs. Mr. Nelson stated that Decision 1630 is a similar act but with a different approach. Decision 1630 places controls on the quantity of water that can be diverted from the Delta and also places controls on distribution. Mr. Nelson concluded by stating that these various laws create a great deal of uncertainty, making the water business very interesting, but very difficult. Discussion followed with regard to limits on reverse flow and the effect on transfers from north to south. 5. WASTELOAD ALLOCATION FOR COPPER IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY: PROPOSED BASIN PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Charles Batts, Chair of the Bay Area Dischargers Association (BADA), stated that there is also uncertainty in the wastewater industry because there is no "drought" of regulations. Mr. Batts indicated that he represents the local dischargers in dealing with the Regional Board on such issues. Copper is the first metal or pollutant subject to site specific objectives and waste load allocation; however, Mr. Batts expects other metals will become subject to such regulations in the future. Mr. Batts reported that in April 1991, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted the State-wide Inland Surface Waters Plan and the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan. The State was pressured by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt as the State standard the national criteria for copper of 2.9 (ug/l) micrograms per liter of water for salt water. The ambient water of the Bay varies from 1 to 6 micrograms per liter for copper. The existing Basin Plan limit is 200 micrograms per liter, or two magnitudes above the proposed limit. Hansen and Associates was hired by the Regional Board to do a study which offered a range of alternatives to the EPA (State) objective. When calculating this site-specific objective, the Board chose to treat the Bay as a whole, or the worst case scenario. In October 1992, the Regional Board adopted from the alternatives, the staff recommendation of 4.9 micrograms per liter, total copper for shallow water dischargers, and 37 micrograms per liter, total copper for deep water dischargers. Even with the new site-specific limit adopted, the water in the Bay exceeds the adopted limit. Mr. Batts stated that dischargers have a number of concerns with the limit set by the Regional Board. There is question as to whether the limit is attainable. To achieve the 4.9 ug/I ',<01 >,28 93 24 limit even with a 20 percent reduction in copper through source control, the treatment process would cost over $3 billion Bay-wide. With 50 percent reduction through source control, the cost would still be $2.5 billion Bay-wide. The effect of these costly efforts on the copper in the Bay would be negligible. Dischargers would remove only 2 percent of the total copper because the most significant sources of copper in the Bay are agriculture and mine drainage reaching the Bay through rivers, urban runoff, and non- urban runoff. Mr. Batts stated that dischargers can expect some kind of wasteload allocation (WLA) to be included in their permits. Shallow water dischargers will be required to reduce copper by 40 to 60 percent in their effluent. Deep water dischargers will be required to reduce copper by 10 to 20 percent depending on their flow and their discharge location. The Regional Board believes these WLA limits are dqable. Mr. Batts summarized the data from CCCSD, showing that copper in the discharge has dropped drastically through the years. Most dischargers have had an approved pretreatment program since the 1970's. Other dischargers' questions include whether these limits should considered as goals rather than being made a part of the permits, who will pay the costs for needed facilities, and how we will know when the objectives for the receiving water have actually been met. Mr. Batts reviewed the time schedule for adoption, stating that compliance with the objective must be achieved by the year 2003. Mr. Robert Baker, of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, stated that the copper limits are very stringent and many dischargers will not be able to meet them. This raises the specter of very expensive advanced treatment. There are a number of things that dischargers can do: 1) change the law; 2) change the regulations; 3) source control; 4) water reclamation; and 5) tertiary treatment. Several organizations are now working on changing the law and regulations. Tri- T AC is one organization trying to do that through a watershed approach to toxicity control. The Federal Clean Water Act of 1987 required states to adopt water quality objectives for priority pollutants. California's Inland Surface Waters Plan and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan adopts the EPA-recommended criteria as objectives and requires feasible source reduction by 1996 and compliance by the year 2001. By 1996, dischargers must determine whether the new limits can be met with source control. If not, the treatment facilities required to remove the metals must be built within five years. The Clean Water Act and the EPA are focusing on point sources of pollutants. However, non point sources are the primary cause of many water quality objective violations. The vast majority of the metals come from sources other than treatment plants. Nonpoint sources of pollutants must be controlled. The Clean Water Act and the State Plans have little authority over mines or agriculture so they are exerting authority where they can, over point source dischargers. The Clean Water Act and the State Plans require treatment works to comply with effluent limits based on water quality objectives. For the Sacramento treatment works, as an example, this means installation of reverse osmosis at a cost of approximately $1 billion with little benefit to the Sacramento River since mines are the cause of the majority of metals in the Sacramento River. Effective water quality control requires a new approach: watershed management. The watershed management approach would: 1 ) Delay numeric limits in permits; 2) 3) Establish site specific water quality objectives; Implement water quality monitoring; 4) Implement minimum standards of operation for all sources; 5) Develop total maximum daily loads; and 6) Allocate load reductions based on cost effectiveness. Benefits of the watershed management approach include focusing on actual sources of pollution and solving water quality problems more effectively and at less cost. 01 28 93 25 Mr. Baker described the sources of copper coming into the CCCSD treatment plant. The largest source is residential users. The major sources of copper from homes is from the water itself and copper pipe, and from chemical root killers. It is hoped that municipal water system corrosion control will be sufficient to meet the required 10 percent reduction in copper. If corrosion control is not sufficient, water reclamation and/or tertiary treatment may be necessary. Discussion followed concerning credits that could be used for mine cleanup, and educating the public as a means of keeping pollutants out of the sewers. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS None 7. DEVELOP AGENDA FOR MARCH 25. 1993 MEETING Suggested agenda items should be submitted to Ms. Joyce Murphy at Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice Chair Starita adjourned the meeting at the hour of 8:07 p.m. Dinner was served immediately following the business meeting. \~/..... ......' .--2,.'?J;;.2~~- .~~~~ President of the Board of Directors, íCen~Contra Costa Sanitary District, tõúnty of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Se ta of the Central Con a Co a Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California 01 28 93