CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER: Monterey Water Supply Analysis & Technical Memorandum, October 5, 2011, RBF Consulting, Cost Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives

NEWS ARTICLE:
Error prompts revision of desal alternatives study
Estimate too high on one project
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 10/25/2011

ABSTRACT: California American Water (CAW) has issued a technical memorandum concerning water supply alternatives designed to meet the Monterey Peninsula’s water shortage. The memo, which was prepared by RBF Consulting, examines eleven water projects capable of meeting the area’s water supply deficit, including the Marina desalination plant, pipeline, and Aquifer, Storage and Recovery (ASR) project approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. The findings will be presented at a public forum planned by the City of Monterey on Wednesday, October 26. A supplemental memo that examines permitting requirements and anticipated timelines for each project is also being prepared. In that memo, the company’s consultant will make a recommendation as to which project represents the best water supply solution for the area based on the criteria defined. Monterey Water Supply Analysis and Technical Memorandum, October 5, 2011, RBF Consulting, Cost Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives, are embedded. A SUMMARY OF REGIONAL PROJECT & ALTERNATIVES CAPITAL COST COMPARISONS appears at the end of the Post based of values from TABLE 3, TABLE 4 and TABLE 5. The Technical Memorandum’s Summary states: “We have reviewed possible physical solutions to the peninsula’s water supply shortage on an equal basis. The next step is to complete an assessment of the permitting and schedule impact for each alternative. This will be presented in a subsequent technical memorandum at which point a final recommendation as to the most attractive alternate or alternates can be determined.”
Note: Documents Courtesy of Catherine Bowie, California American Water.

Monterey Water Supply Analysis October 5 2011 FINAL

Monterey Water Supply Analysis, October 5, 2011

Content includes Project Supply and System Demand, Alternatives 1-11, Total Capital Costs Bar Chart for Alternatives 1-11, Total Annualized Capital and O&M/Annual Costs, Unit Costs ($/AF), Alternatives 1, 2 & 11, Alternatives 3 & 4-Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant (LCVFP) + Extended Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR), Alternative 5 – Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant (LCVFP) + Desal Plant in Marina + Extended ASR, Alternative 6-LCVFP + Sand City Desal Expansion + Extended ASR, Alternative 7-LCVFP + Monterey Desal Plant + Extended ASR, Alternative 8-Lower Carmel Valley Iron Removal Plant (LCVIRP) + Monterey Desal Plant + Extended ASR, Alternative 9-SRFP + Extended ASR, Alternative 10.

Technical Memorandum RBF Consulting

Technical Memorandum
Date: October 5, 2011
To: Richard Svindland, Director of Engineering, California American Water
From: Paul Findley, RBF Consulting
Subject: Cost Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives

This technical memorandum presents the results of cost analysis for eleven alternatives to solve the water supply deficit in CAW’s Coastal Division. It should be noted that these alternatives represent physical solutions and that we have not fully explored permitting and schedule impacts for each of these alternatives. Permitting and schedule impacts will be presented in a subsequent technical memorandum.

•Alternative 1 – Implementation of 10 mgd Marina project;
•Alternative 2 – Implementation of 6.5 mgd Marina project with 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater Recharge in Seaside, and 2700 AFY of Carmel River water used for ASR and injection dilution;
•Alternative 3 – 35 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 4 – 24 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system in Seaside, with 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater Recharge, and 4200 AFY of Carmel River water used for ASR and injection dilution;
•Alternative 5 – 32 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant, a 3. 5 mgd desalination plant in North Marina, and a 5500 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 6 – 35 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant, expansion of the Sand City desalination plant from 0.3 mgd to 1.0 mgd, and a 6500 afy ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 7 – 32 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant, a 3.0 mgd desalination plant near the Naval Post Graduate School, and a 5200 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 8– 20 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Iron Removal Plant, a 5 mgd desalination plant near the Naval Post Graduate School, and a 5100 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 9 – 35 mgd Salinas River Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 10 – 10 mgd “Deep Water Desalination” Plant near Moss Landing with a 1300 AFY ASR system in Seaside.
•Alternative 11 – 5 mgd Marina project with 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater Recharge in Seaside, 2700 AFY of Carmel River water used for ASR and injection dilution, and implementation of a more aggressive conservation program to reduce demand by an additional 1500 AFY. A potential variation of this alternative would be to obtain additional Table 13 direct diversion rights in lieu of additional conservation.

Contents include Description and Operation for each Alternative, Tables (REGIONAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST, System Flow Rates, CAPITAL COST COMPARISON (2012 Dollars in Millions), O&M/ANNUAL COST COMPARISON (2012 Dollars), UNIT COST COMPARISON Figures (Alternative 3, Alternative 5, Alternative 6, Alternative 7, Alternative 8, Alternative 9 , Cost Comparison including Capital Cost, O&M/Annual Cost, Unit Cost, Other Considerations and Summary

SUMMARY OF REGIONAL PROJECT & ALTERNATIVES CAPITAL COST COMPARISONS
REGIONAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST (Estimated Cost (Oct 2012 $)
MCWD/MCWRA Total MCWD/MCWRA Capital Cost $297,000,000
CAW Total CAW Capital Cost $107,000,000
TOTAL REGIONAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST $404,000,000


Cost Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives -