Synopsis: Clear signals from the California Coastal Commission and three months of studying 17 alternative sites for a new Morro Bay-Cayucos wastewater treatment plant under a $350,000 contract with an engineering firm have failed to change the apparent determination to locate a new multi-million dollar plant in an area with a 100-year flood plain and tsunami zone, which the Coastal Commission has said is "fundamentally flawed" and unacceptable.
Some things change, some things don't, especially when it comes to the planned new Morro Bay-Cayucos wastewater treatment plant project.
Seventeen alternative sites for the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) project have now been identified in the wake of the California Coastal Commission on March 11 declaring that the submission of only a single site for construction of a new plant was unacceptable. On top of that, the commission found the particular site that was submitted by Morro Bay and Cayucos also was unacceptable because, among other things, it is in a 100-year flood plain and in a tsunami zone on the shore of Estero Bay in violation of the city's own coastal plan.
So Morro Bay and Cayucos hired a contractor to survey a number of possible sites for a new plant, as the commission ordered. The contractor's report was released last month.
But the top-ranked site in the contractor's survey of 17 sites may still be—in whole or part—in the flood plain/tsunami zone, a location which the Coastal Commission found to be "fundamentally flawed" because it involves placing a "new, major public works infrastructure in a highly hazardous area where it is not allowed per the LCP (city's Local Coastal Plan)."
That survey's top-ranked site is referred to as the "current WWTP" in the 114-page (Rough Screening Alternative Sites Evaluation) "Rough Screening Alternative Sites Evaluation," produced by the contractor, Dudek engineering, under a $350,000 contract with the city of Morro Bay and the Cayucos Sanitary District (MB/CSD), who own and operate the WWTP under a Joint Powers Agreement.
Ranked second and third on the Dudek list are the Chevron Facility Hillside Site and the Righetti Property. (See the map of all sites.) But it seems unclear whether the term "current WWTP" refers to or at least implies (1) literally an upgrade or replacement of the present old plant or (2) a new plant on the same site that MB/CSD submitted—and was turned down by the Coastal Commission—which is next to the present plant at 160 Atascadero Road just south of Morro Bay High School.
The Dudek Evaluation does not explain what is meant in the Evaluation by "current WWTP," although it does say "the current proposed WWTP project is an upgrade to the treatment facilities only." However, the project submitted to the Coastal Commission last January also was labeled an "upgrade" (which the Commission staff said clearly was not an upgrade but a new plant).
When asked to clarify, Morro Bay City Attorney Rob Schultz indicated the term "current WWTP" refers to 14.4 city-owned acres that contain both the existing WWTP and a piece of land adjacent to it. That piece of land is the location that MB/CSD had proposed for a new plant and was rejected by the Coastal Commission.
That seems to suggest that the existing plant may be considered for upgrading but leaving it where it is, which raises more questions because upgrading or replacing the existing WWTP was not what all the contractors hired by MB/CSD at great expense have been working on and designing for years. Their focus and work was on designing a new plant next to the existing one.
So in spite of the MB/CSD's original proposed site being rejected by the Coastal Commission, a state agency that has ultimate control over the project, and after three months of examining a range of other possible locations for the multi-million dollar new plant by Dudek, MB/CSD appear to be sticking with the same flood plain/tsunami area for their top choice as the location to build a new plant. (It is assumed that since Dudek is working for MB/CSD, its recommendations on the sites are going to reflect MB/CSD preferences.)
A brand new map of the flood zone area may be interpreted by Dudek and MB/CSD as showing part of the "current WWTP" site to be out of the flood zone, and, therefore, possibly acceptable to the Coastal Commission? Or, being new, it could show what the older map does not: that all or virtually all of the site is within the flood zone. It is not clear which is the case. Only the Coastal Commission can decide which is correct or even if it is relevant.
In a appendix (H) to the main Sites Evaluation, it states:
"The proposed Morro Bay/Cayucos Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) facilities will be constructed to replace the existing WWTP in order to update the wastewater treatment process to meet discharge permitting requirements, to position the City and District for future reclamation, and to minimize impacts to neighboring properties by removing the treatment facilities from the 100 year flood zone." (emphasis added)
If this reference is based on one of the flood zone maps, it may mean that a section of the site is now being proposed for a new plant that is considered outside the flood zone. But even if that section of the site is found to be outside the flood zone, the commission has identified numerous other objections to the plant being sited in that bay front area, which it said is impermissible under local and state statutes.
Overall, the Dudek report only focuses on the gross costs involved in building a new WWTP on any of the other 16 sites. But it fails to take into account the potential financial gains from removing the plant from the Estero Bay waterfront to allow expanded visitor-serving uses that would generate income to offset (a) the presumably higher cost to build a plant that could produce significant quantities of disinfected recycled water and (b) the costs of pipes and pumping to bring recycled water from one of the other sites to Morro Bay residents, who, the Coastal Commission has emphasized, badly need less expensive and more reliable sources of water and could save them significant amounts of money. The costs of building such a plant also could be offset by selling such recycled water for agricultural irrigation, especially if a new plant were located closer to farms inland.
Therefore, the report provides no such economic analysis that gets at the net cost of a new plant at some other site.
A second major shortcoming of the report is that it rejects requiring a new plant to produce a large volume of recycled water to fill Morro Bay community needs and ignores the Coastal Commission staff's letter of November 12, 2010, which emphasized that the city's LCP states "use of reclaimed water is the City's second highest priority (after conservation)."
That letter, which will very likely be the guide that the commission staff will follow when it reviews the Dudek alternative sites report to determine if its overall approach is acceptable, said that "details about the potential to reclaim 100% of the wastewater produced" by a new plant must be provided by MB/CSD.
In addition, there appear to be numerous ambiguities, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the Sites Evaluation report:
Sites in 100-Year Flood Zone
—The Dudek report states that the 17 sites "with only a portion or portions of developable land area within the 100‐year flood hazard zone . . . were not considered to exhibit a fatal flaw due to this criterion alone because additional, site specific study could possibly demonstrate there are feasible, developable areas outside of the 100‐year floodplain." It cites no basis for allowing differentiation between a site being partly or wholly within the hazard zone in light of the apparent fact that such maps may not be as precise as assumed and the changing nature of water front areas.
—A portion of what it calls the WWTP site is shown to be outside the 100‐year Flood Hazard Zone along the western and eastern site boundaries, the report says. Therefore, "portions of the site appear to have the potential for development outside of the Flood Hazard Zone." The question of how much of such a site must be within the flood plain to be unacceptable apparently has not been raised before, but when the Dudek report is submitted to the Coastal Commission, as expected, the commission undoubtedly will make a finding that will be binding in the case.
—The Dudek report also recognizes that the "City’s LCP prohibits new development in flood plains except under very limited circumstances as specifically articulated in the LCP. All development, including construction, excavation and grading, except for flood control projects and agricultural uses shall be prohibited in the 100‐year floodplain areas unless off‐setting improvements in accordance with the HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) regulations are required . . . "
—The Coastal Commission staff report has stated in commenting on the site in the floodplain submitted by MB/CSD last January: " . . . (LCP) Policy 9.03 . . . prohibits all development in the 100-year floodplain, including construction, excavation and grading, except off-setting improvements required by HUD. This project is not an off-setting improvement required by HUD, and therefore, the LCP prohibits the project at this location." Policy 9.03 is mentioned in the Dudek report, but it is interpreted as meaning only that "any alternative site located entirely (emphasis added) within the 100 year floodplain is considered to demonstrate a fatal flaw."
—The Dudek report also contends that the LCP protects the WWTP at its present location, which provides it with special consideration. But that issue was addressed by the Coastal Commission on March 11 when it responded to the contention that the LCP "allows for protection of the existing WWTP at its current location because the ocean outfall line is coastal-dependent. However, this policy does not apply to the approved project because this project is for construction of a new WWTP. The policy in question is meant to indicate that the existing plant could be protected . . . to address flooding . . . if that were deemed appropriate for other reasons, but it is not a basis to justify a replacement plant incorporating different technologies at the same location."
— As a means of preventing a plant in the flood plain area from being flooded, the Dudek report says "the site elevation is proposed to be raised above the 100 year floodplain, or approximately 5 feet above the existing site grade, to accommodate the new treatment facilities." But the Coastal Commission earlier had quashed that idea contained in the MB/CSD plant project it turned down: " . . . in an effort to address the risks of flooding, the . . . project includes raising the new WWTP on approximately five feet of new fill. Such an approach does not conform to (LCP) Policy 9.05, which requires cut and fill to be minimized, and requires projects that include excessive cut and fill to be modified or denied."
—In interpreting how much of the plant site is within the floodplain, Dudek refers to an older map issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But a new FEMA map just released seems unclear as to whether the "current WWTP" site is in the 100-year flood plain in whole or part.
Tsunami Zone
—The Dudek report says "the risk that a potential alternative site could be inundated by a tsunami during the life of the facility is very low due to the long intervals between earthquakes of sufficient location, magnitude and character of movement to actually cause a tsunami." No scientific or expert reference basis for that contention was provided.
—The Coastal Commission said the previous MB/CSD project "is located in a 100-year floodplain and tsunami inundation zone directly adjacent to an eroding shoreline where the sea level is rising and in an area subject to known seismic hazards."
Rejecting Some Sites for Having 'Fatal Flaws'
—Six of the 17 sites surveyed and evaluated by Dudek were identified in its report as having "fatal flaws" (the report states that a fatal flaw is "defined as an underlying site condition or restrictions, such as policy or regulatory prohibitions for new development, presence of unmitigatable environmentally sensitive resources, or other such circumstance that would reasonably inhibit the City and/or MBCSD’s ability to develop a site . . . with a WWTP"). Therefore, those six sites were eliminated by Dudek from further consideration in its upcoming "fine screening process," which is expected to be made public some time in November, Dudek says. Those six sites are Whale Rock, Highway 41/Madonna property, Hayashi or Giannini properties, PG&E/City property, Lila Keiser Park and additional Highway 41 properties.
—The report eliminated a site from further consideration if it was deemed to have three "fatal flaws." Elsewhere, the report seems to indicate that just one fatal flaw is enough to disqualify a site from further consideration: . . . "any site that has a demonstrated fatal flaw will not be carried forward for further evaluation in the rough screening analysis."
—However, some of those same flaws that caused any one of the six sites to be eliminated were found in other sites that will continue to be reviewed, including the "current WWTP." And the report itself states that flaws can in some cases be corrected through such processes as amending the city's Local Coastal Plan. The number (three) and types of flaws used as the standard for deciding which sites would be eliminated appears to be subjective, arbitrary and applied inconsistently.
—Although it may seen contradictory to give top ranking to any site in the flood plain/tsunami zone, it was "not considered to exhibit a fatal flaw due to this criterion alone on grounds additional, site specific study could possibly demonstrate there are feasible, developable areas outside of the 100‐year floodplain," the report said. The six eliminated sites apparently were not allowed to be studied in this manner.
Recycled Water From New Plant
—The Dudek report states that MB/CSD are committed to building a plant that would provide the quality of processed water for use in agriculture and to refurbish the city's municipal wells (called disinfected tertiary water). But it would be a limited amount to start off, although the report said the plant could be improved to produce more later, which would be an added cost, possibly a significant one. A Coastal Commission staff report said that if the wells could be regenerated to produce significant amounts of water for use by residents, it would open the way to reducing reliance on costly and unreliable state water supplies.
—Despite that stated commitment to build a plant capable of producing disinfected tertiary water, the report then dismisses water recycling, based on a 12-year-old report: "Both the City of Morro Bay and Cayucos were previously evaluated for potential users of recycled water by Carollo Engineers in1999 as part of the Comprehensive Recycled Water Study. That study concluded that implementation of a full-scale reclaimed water program was economically infeasible, largely due to significant costs required to upgrade the existing facility and installation of conveyance pipelines to deliver the recycled water to customers, many of whom had access to relatively inexpensive local groundwater supplies or imported state water project water." That was when groundwater supplies in Morro Bay were more available and state water was cheaper and its reliability was assumed. (Carollo Engineers were involved with Montgomery, Watson Harza (MWH) in the controversial Los Osos sewer project. MWH has been accused of sewer plant contracting improprieties in a number of communities across the nation, including, most prominently, New Orleans. (Slo Coast Journal.com- October 2010).
—The Dudek report also concluded that "A Groundwater Recharge Reuse Project (GRRRP)" at any of the potential sites being considered by MB/CSD is "most likely infeasible based on the characteristics of the existing aquifers and the proposed regulations governing GRRRP." The basis for that conclusion was not clear.
—The report makes no mention of the Coastal Commission's emphasis on the need for and benefit of a new plant being able to produce significant quantities of recycled water, which it did in rejecting the MB/CSD's proposed site in the flood plain on March 11:
"The Applicant must also provide a complementary, updated water reclamation feasibility study that explores all potential demand for reclaimed water, including for agricultural irrigation inside and outside of the City limits, and the way in which the project could be reconceived to dispose of treated effluent in this manner. The study must evaluate the feasibility of constructing infrastructure to accommodate such a water reclamation program, and it must evaluate the benefits of a water reclamation program, including potential benefits to stream habitats and water supply, potential revenue generation from providing such water to users and offsetting the need for purchased State Water credits, and the potential for elimination of the existing ocean outfall."
Public Viewshed, Access, Recreational Opportunities
—In reviewing and rejecting the previous MB/CSD plant project, which was sited in the same coastal location as the one ranked first by the Dudek report, the Coastal Commission said that "although the LCP and the Coastal Act require public recreational access opportunities to be maximized and oceanfront land to be protected for recreational use, the (MB/CSD) project would reduce the availability of scarce oceanfront land for potential public recreational purposes, and it could cause adverse impacts to nearby existing public recreational access opportunities due to both construction activities and operation of the new WWTP," which is "inconsistent with LCP and Coastal Act public recreational access requirements."
—The Dudek report said a potential plant site located directly adjacent to oceanfront lands is "considered potentially inconsistent" with the LCP and the same with regarding public access/recreation, and "visual resources" that include "significant public views" along the shoreline. In both cases, the report's remedy: "additional effort to demonstrate consistency." No ways to accomplish that consistency were suggested.
Sea Level Rise
—The Coastal Commission said "the City’s analysis (Local Coastal Plan) of the impacts of approximately 4.5 feet of sea level rise indicates that by 2100, storm surges associated with sea level rise alone could inundate the project site. Taken together with other related constraints (floodplain location issues, shoreline erosion issues, creek mouth geometry and volume, etc.), it can reasonably be presumed that such sea level rise will tend to result in even worse flooding and inundation at this site over time, and that the site will be subject to shoreline erosion and its attendant impacts in the future."
—Without acknowledging the commission's comments, the Dudek report said a site "located on, or adjacent to the shoreline would likely be subject to additional development constraints/limitations in the form of minimum setback requirements, prohibition of proposed and future shoreline protection, and would likely require additional site‐specific study and design consideration and mitigation to ensure site development can accommodate potential sea level rise and associated hazards related to increased storm surge, wave uprush, flooding and tsunami." That makes such a site "potentially inconsistent with this criterion and associated LCP policies requiring additional effort to demonstrate consistency." But the preferred site was not given a fatal flaw as a result.
Economic Factors in Selecting a Plant Site
—Costs of not only building but operating a WWTP were emphasized by the Dudek report. "Wastewater conveyance operations, especially pumping costs, do vary between potential sites and is considered a significant factor in evaluating alternative sites. Pumping costs for each alternative site were compared relative to each other based on average daily flow and the pressure required to pump wastewater from the terminus of the existing collection system to the potential alternative site."
—The cost of constructing a WWTP at the California Men's Colony, Chorro Valley and Power Plant Hillside Tank Farm sites "would be prohibitive due to the amount of piping required to convey flows" plus "greater capital and operating costs" and "energy requirements due to pumping needs," the report said. No comparative costs figures seemed to be in the report.
—Costs could also be involved if regulations, such as the LCP, were to be amended due to the additional effort and delay in project implementation, it said.
—"Potential alternative sites which would require a significant amount of additional planning, environmental analysis, development review and project design would result in delaying required upgrades to the existing wastewater treatment system necessary to ensure compliance with current NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirements in a reasonable timeframe and/or would require permit modifications or the issuance of a new NPDES permit and are therefore considered inconsistent with this criterion," the report said.
—"With the exception of the existing WWTP site (Site 1), and to a lesser extent the Chorro Valley site (Site 2), constructing and operating a new WWTP at any other of the alternative sites proposed in this Rough Screening evaluation would require additional studies and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) analysis and processing prior to approval . . . ," the report said. The CEQA process for the alternative sites could reasonably take 12 to 18 months to complete once a conceptual design is completed, it added.
—Clearly, the Dudek report has placed cost ahead of other benefits, such as locating a plant where it would ensure against any possibility that flooding could not disable the plant and deprive the two communities of sewer services for an unknown length of time.
—In assessing costs of placing a new plant at various sites, Dudek does not raise the issue of the economic benefits that would be derived from removing the plant from the present site. One economic benefit would come from opening up that scenic, bay front area to extensive visitor-serving uses. Another would come from making available disinfected tertiary to reduce reliance on state water, saving residents possibly significant amounts of money on their water rates. A third would come from selling that quality of water for agricultural irrigation, thereby also protecting such lands for long-term use and productivity. All this income would serve to offset—perhaps significantly—the costs of locating the plant elsewhere. Therefore, no complete economic analysis has been conducted to determine the net cost—not just the expenditures to build and operate a plant at an alternative site—by taking into account these other incomes to the MB/CSD from new uses made available from locating the plant away from the present site.
Site on Farm Land
—The Dudek report said "sites containing designated prime farmland and/or active agricultural uses in their entirety were considered to exhibit a fatal flaw because: 1) development on such sites would result in unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources protected under City and County LCP policies, and 2) unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources would conflict with CCA (California Coastal Act) policies which mandate protection of agricultural resources as a priority coastal use . . . "
—It also said that "alternative sites that would result in agricultural land conversion of prime soils and/or active coastal farmlands for development of a WWTP is considered to demonstrate a fatal flaw and will not be carried forward for further evaluation." Three potential alternative sites were dismissed as exhibiting fatal flaws related to agricultural resources.
—The report cited Coastal Act, Section 30241, as saying that "the maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas’ agricultural economy." The Coastal Act, the report said, would permit "the conversion of agricultural land surrounded by urban uses where the conversion of the land would be consistent with Section 30250," which states: "Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas."
—The report also cited LCP Policy 6.04: "All non‐agricultural development permitted on non‐prime agricultural lands shall preserve the maximum amount of lands in agricultural use. In approving any land divisions or non‐agricultural use, all of the following findings shall be made by the City: (2) The proposed division and/or use will allow for and support the continued use of the site as a productive agricultural unit, would contribute to long term agricultural viability and would preserve all agricultural lands."
—These Coastal Act and LCP policies seem to indicate that if a WWTP were placed on a small (five acres) part of a large parcel of prime agricultural land, the facility could serve to enhance the use of those lands through the provision of additional recycled water for irrigation that would provide an economic benefit, not a deficit, to the productivity and value of local farming land that continually faces water shortages. It would seem to "allow and support the continued use of the (land) as a productive agricultural unit," as the LCP describes it.
Workshops
—Each alternative is assessed and ranked based on considerations determined in coordination with public and stakeholder input received during public workshops and the related public comment period from June 14 to July 15, 2011, as well as from MBCSD and CCC staff, the Dudek report said.
—Ranking the "current WWTP" first among the 17 alternatives would have been opposed overwhelmingly based on public comments submitted during that period. (Morro-Bay CA)
Power Plant
—The Morro Bay Power Plant site was designated by the Dudek report as having potential for development of a new WWTP. The northern portion of the power plant site, however, is located within the 100 year Flood Hazard Zone, the report said, including the entire tank farm location, now being cleared, and contains mapped ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) along Morro Creek at the northern perimeter of the power plant property. "Part of the site is reportedly sufficiently-elevated above grade due to the existing infrastructure requirements associated with the plant, and contains existing development (the plant itself with generators and three smokestacks)," the report said.
—Consideration of the power plant site for a new WWTP assumes there is usable space besides that taken by the power plant building, which was not made clear in the report. There are no known current plans to remove the plant.
