Brian Knolls ‘Opinion’ is that Recycled Water is Optional and Might Not Be the Best Use of Beaumont’s Resources.
Beaumont City Council Transcript December 20, 2016: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/i…
2:16:00 Knoll: Lastly, I wanted to give you another update on the Title 22 Engineering Report and the prospects of moving forward to get Title 22 Compliance and be able to produce Recycled Water. I think it was two weeks ago Amer, myself, and Justin Logan from Aqua Engineering went down to San Diego to meet the Water Resources Control Board to review the comments that we received on your Title 22 Report. There was some confusion, so we wanted to go meet face to face with them and so we did that. We met with representatives from the Resource Control Board. The goal was to come to a resolution on all of the comments that we understood their concern and they understood how we were going to address it and mitigate for any concerns and that at the end of that you will have an ‘Approved Report’ short of just whatever those improvements were outlined previously.
2:17:00 Knoll: There was about five improvements that needed to be made. The goal is to have a Report that is done, if decided to move forward. As soon as those projects were finished you would have an Approved Title 22 Engineering Report and opportunity to seek a Permit for producing recycled water. We were able to work through all of those questions and details. Productive meeting. Where we’re at now; we’re going to be turning that around and submitting it back to the State with the goal of that you’ll get correspondence back saying that as soon as you finish these five items, whatever the final number is, that you’re ready to go forward.
2:18:00 Knoll: Then the burden comes to you guys as a decision making body as to whether or not to move forward with those improvements in the interim, before the plant gets upgraded and expanded – what we’re doing for the salt mitigation. I will tell you; some of these improvements may not be beneficial to the ultimate plant. What we should probably do is give you that information as a cost breakdown, and we can provide that to your staff. What would be beneficial long-term and what would be, and I hate to use this term, but a ‘throwaway’, you know, in the long-term, when the ultimate plant in constructed. I will tell you that some of the most significant upgrades would be able to be incorporated into the long-term plant. We feel there is a good path forward for you guys to produce recycled water, it’s now just a matter of whether or not that’s the best use of your resources.
2:19:00 Knoll: From a Basin Plan Compliance standpoint; it helps a little bit because recycled water, if you used it, you get – you can discharge it at at 330 TDS instead of 400 and that’s just a little bit less salt that you have to mitigate on the backend when your plant gets upgraded and expanded. You also show good faith that you’re in compliance and good steps forward in complying with the Maximum Benefit Program that the Regional Board has laid out. There’s probably some really good reasons to do it, but there’s some cost there that may not be recovered. One of the things that did come out of that meeting was that what we found in discussions was that one of the improvements that we plan to make long-term with the UV system.
2:20:00 Knoll: If we make it now there may be in opportunity to get your plant re-rated to a little over 4.5 MGD instead of 4.0 MGD that you have now. It buys a little time, gives a little wiggle room. It doesn’t help with Basin Plan Salt Mitigation, but it does give some breathing room as far as capacity goes. That’s something we could pursue further, but it would require one of those significant improvements that we talked about to achieve Title 22. So that’s one that would be important to Title 22, it would be important to maybe getting a higher rating for your plant, it would also be incorporated into the expansion.
2:21:00 Knoll: The last thing here is the State Board asked the question; if you finish all these projects and produce recycled water then is the City going to become the deliverer, the purveyor of recycled water? We indicated at this point the City is not pursuing being the recycled water deliverer or purveyor. So they asked; who would be? You guys have three discharge points approved in your permit; Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District, Tukwet Golf Course, and Oak Valley. What they alerted us to is that none of those three have a permit currently to distribute recycled water.
2:22:00 Knoll: So that’s a discussion that we need to have and part of the outreach effort with BCVWD is to understand where they’re at in their permitting process. The reason we want to alert you is because we don’t want you to say go spend the money and get us the Title 22 if there’s no outlet to distribute it. We need to make sure there’s a viable outlet before you commit to going to produce recycled water. That would be a misstep. We need to ask those three; where are they at in getting a permit for recycled water. I have not independently verified that, but that was the comment made to us by the State Control Board.
2:23:00 Knoll: We just need to figure out where that lies and how long it will take, how long before someone will have one so you can make a better decision when to move forward and when the timelines mesh so there’s opportunity to use that recycled water when it becomes available.
2:25:00 Orozco: What happens [if we produce recycled water] and there are no receivers? Does it go back to the City? Can the City at that point…what are our options?
Knoll: I believe the City could apply for a permit to distribute recycled water. At this point when we’ve had discussions with your staff and with previous management it didn’t seem like it was the right way to go for the City because you don’t have infrastructure to distribute it at this point. It’s very costly. Other people may be in a better position to distribute that [recycled] water.
2:26:00 Knoll: To go to that next level of permitting effort, of staff requirements, and all of that to get to that point is probably not something that I would recommend. But certainly the City could apply to be a recycled water discharger to the State Board. They asked us the question; is that what you intend to do? That would not be the first choice of the City based on previous policy discussions that we’ve had, but at some point you’re on the hook, the City of Beaumont is on the hook to deliver recycled water over the Beaumont Basin. That’s part of your commitments made as part of the Max Benefit Program. Somebody needs to be able to do it. We need to have a better understanding of where the other more likely candidates are from a permitting standpoint.
2:27:00 Knoll: And then, based on that, then maybe there’s a different discussion to be had. I would guess, I would assume that BCVWD hasn’t gone through all of the work to build a non-potable system right now with the anticipation of introducing recycled water without having thought about that. We just need to understand where they are in that process so that you can make a good decision about what to do.
Orozco: And at our end; we’re making storage capacity for that recycled water?
Knoll: Depending on where the outlet is, whether the receiver and discharge system looks like for recycled water; what’s always a hangup is having enough storage to be able to store during the day when most of the flow comes through your plant, then discharge at night when recycled waters’ only allowed to be discharged for irrigation purposes.
2:28:00 Knoll: There’s always a disconnect between when the water comes through the plant and when it can be discharged for irrigation. And so having storage; that’s why we’ve planned to have that storage as part of the expansion project because we don’t know exactly where that ending point is. If it turns out that BCVWD is the outlet source for where the recycled water goes and they have adequate storage to be able to buffer the day/night peaks and valleys then yea, you could just deliver it on to them and deliver it out and that storage tank may not be required. But until we know where that’s going to go and what the capabilities are; you need to plan for it because it may be required.
2:29:00 Knoll: But that’s something that we can work out as far as when we look down the road as to who the receiver is and what their system looks like and what their capabilities are. And if it can be eliminated then great, it can be eliminated. It’s a cost reduction. In previous workshops; we wanted to give you the full picture of what the costs were. You recognize that there may be points where the costs can be reduced.
2:30:00 Mike Lara: For the permit to be the purveyor; is there a cost for that?
Knoll: I’m not sure of all the details of what that costs the Board would charge for the process.
Lara: I just want to make sure that we don’t have purveyors trying to move forward and spend money on a permit that when we’re not committed to supplying that water.
Knoll: It definitely needs to be coordinated on both sides.
Council Unanimously Approves