A Report by the 2015-2016 Contra Costa County Grand Jury*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
Comments 2
-
CO1CCWD $6.00 DSRSD $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 50 172 250 500 1000 393 Vertical-axis = dollars/unit (748 gallons) based on a 61 day billing cycle Horizontal-axis = average gallons per day over 61 day billing cycle Water providers recently pointed out that water conservation has resulted in "drastic losses in revenue needed for infrastructure investments and fixed cost recovery (costs incurred regardless of amount of water used - representing about 70 percent of customer bills)." A recent Fitch Ratings survey revealed that 78 percent of municipal water agencies have already, or plan to, adjust rates to offset losses from mandatory conservation. Clearly the downside of conservation is that the retail customer will not be saving much money for using less water. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1606 Final Observations – Water supplies are not growing, but population is. . Desalination of brackish water (where available) needs to be revisited. . Estimated costs are slightly lower than DPR quality water and public acceptance could be easier to gain. The estimated costs for IPR and DPR remain relatively high, even though the . energy cost to operate the plants should be lower than desalination plants. Unless CCCSD can get a State or Federal grant to increase its capacity for . recycled water, it cannot be cost competitive with raw canal water supplied by CCWD to their industrial customers.
-
CO2(Average Dry Million Gallons per mgd Weather Flow), mgd Day = mgd Central San 0.6 mgd committed 2.9 30 to Zones 1 &2 plus (CCCSD) (available) Fill Station 0.6 (used) 12.8 7.3 During hottest Delta Diablo summer days 100% to Calpine, purple pipe irrigation, and public "Fill Station" 5.8 West County SD 6.5 Essentially 100% of capacity is spoken for by Chevron City of Richmond 0 6.03 Discharged to the Bay; effluent is too salty for recycling Pinole/Hercules 3.5 Discharged to Bay 0 0.5 Purple pipe to golf City of Brentwood 3.2 courses and parks; also "Fill Station" Ironhouse SD 2.26 1.0 Ag application; the rest goes into river 0.6 Discovery Bay CSD 1.8 Local irrigation Dublin San Ramon 1.6 1.5 Purple pipe to golf (returned to Contra SD (from Contra Costa) courses and parks; also "Fill Stations" Costa) Mt. View SD 1.25 100% is being fed 0 into a marsh for wildlife habitat Rodeo SD 0.01 1.14 Minor amount for in-plant landscape Crockett CSD 0.93 0 Discharged to Bay 0 Byron SD Discharged to 0.1 Marsh Creek TOTALS 17.31 Average = 24.3%* 71.11 * This is the annual average. The percent recycled increases in hot summer months and decreases in winter months. Potential Recyclers and Potential Customers - There are 13 wastewater treatment plants serving the County. Also, there are several industrial sites that treat and then discharge their internally generated wastewater Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1606 directly into the Delta or the Bay. If some of this discharged water was further treated, it could be reused at the industrial sites instead of discharged. This would lower these sites' demand for higher quality outside water. However, it is unclear if this plan is currently economically viable. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) has the greatest potential capacity to recycle water. Even so, its ability to process Title 22 quality water for export is currently limited to roughly 3 mgd. To increase its capacity CCCSD would need to construct additional filtration units and related infrastructure. Industrial customers (Shell Martinez, and Tesoro Golden Eagle refineries) would be potential users of any such recycled water. Apart from industrial users, CCCSD is expanding its system for distributing recycled water to local golf courses. Table 2 summarizes the players, potential quantities available for reuse, and the potential needs. There are other smaller projects that would use on-site or satellite treatment plants to "harvest" a portion of the wastewater stream for golf course irrigation, before sending the balance on to the main treatment plant. Cost would be borne by the user. Table 2 - Potential or Planned Recycled Water Projects Treatment Customer/Project Quantity Timeline and/or Plant Required,
Agency Responses 17
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.