A First for MB/CSD, or a Fourth? Find Out on January 10
Can the Morro Bay/Cayucos partnership avoid losing to the California Coastal Commission and its staff over where to build a new wastewater treatment plant in our area? The momentous meeting in Pismo Beach will be packed with Morro Bay, Cayucos, Los Osos and residents from many other local communities to see where the new WWTP winds up. The location could be a major factor in whether we all get a plant that benefits us all.
For three years, the city of Morro Bay and the Cayucos Sanitary District have been seeking to replace their jointly-owned 50-year-old wastewater treatment plant fronting on Estero Bay with a new plant. Now Morro Bay and Cayucos are trying again.
And now, if they go ahead with their plan they stand to be defeated for a fourth time. They are partners in the Joint Powers Agreement partnership.
A blockbuster analysis by the official consultant to Morro Bay and the Cayucos Sanitary District on development of a new jointly-owned wastewater treatment plant confirms for the first time that building the required new plant in a different location would save an estimated $8 million, thereby reducing the net cost of the new plant by that amount — and possibly more — and saving taxpayers significant amounts they will be required to pay to finance the plant and making Morro By much more attractive for toursts. (See: Slo Coast Journal - March 2012)
MB, CSD, and a lot of their supporters believe their best argument is that moving the WWTP to another site will cost millions more than leaving it where it is, which Morro Bay and Cayucos have campaigned for at least since 2009. But MB/CSD's own engineering consultant, Dudek, has already determined from research that the net cost would be less to build elsewhere.
All the claims that building a new Morro Bay/Cayucos wastewater treatment plant on the site of the existing plant would be the cheapest route were flushed down the drain with a study by the engineering consultant for the two communities, who concluded that developing a "boutique" hotel on the existing site and building a new plant elsewhere in Morro Bay or Cayucos would save taxpayers millions of dollars.
The Dudek report went on to say that a fully-operational 120-room hotel built on a part of the plant site would have an estimated value between $7.25 and $12 million, depending on the scope of the mixed commercial use that the development would entail and the presumed room rates to be charged.
It all comes to a head at a California Coastal Commission meeting, where the Commission staff has marshaled even more powerful arguments against the latest plant proposal from last summer. This will appear for the fourth time. MB/CSD lost three times before. The meeting is scheduled for January 10 at the Veterans Memorial Building in Pismo Beach, 780 Bello Street. The meeting is last on the Commission's day-long agenda, with no set beginning or ending starting times for this issue. (See the CCC Staff Report on the Hearing)
However, the new Morro Bay City Council's position may be heard in advance of the meeting. To air the matter, resolutions will be before the Council on Sunday, January 3, at 6 p.m. in the Morro Bay Vets Hall.
Among the crucial points that the Commission (CCC) staff has made repeatedly is that building a new plant where the only one has been since the 1950s is illegal. It would never have been built had the Coastal Act, which governs uses of coastal land in California, been in existence. The Coastal Act wasn't passed by voters until 1972. Now it prevents development of industrial facilities like a treatment plant where the MB/CSD plant is located. And MB/CSD want to put another one there. Should the Commission approve it, they would surely get sued out of their shoes, being in violation of the law that governs their conduct and protects coastal lands.
The Commission staff also has ruled that the proposed new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is not an allowed use under the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) at its existing location. The LCP is an agreement between the CCC and MB/CSD about use of the coastal land. The existing WWTP is a non-conforming use under the LCP's certified light-industrial zoning of the site, and construction of a new WWTP on this site is not an allowable use and therefore inconsistent with the LCP.
MB and CSD have never successfully challenged these CCC findings, so why would they expect to be successful this time?
The CCC staff report also emphasizes that the proposed WWTP project would produce cleaner, tertiary treated wastewater, but it only includes a small reclamation component, one that is designed to use only a portion of the reclaimed water that could potentially be produced. This is key because water is invaluable and the plant owners, farmers, residents, and the plant need as much water as possible from the plant to justify its use and cost of operation. The vast majority of the treated wastewater from MB/CSD's proposed new MB-CSD plant would be discharged to the ocean.
Morro Bay badly needs a new fresh water supply because state water from which the city receives much of is water is fading.
The LCP thus directs a WWTP project to maximize reclamation so that such recycled water can be made available to both offset potable water use as well as to enhance freshwater resources (e.g., through use for agricultural irrigation, urban landscaping, groundwater replenishment, etc.). These concerns are especially important given that the City receives much of its water from the State Water Project and reclamation would provide an important contingency in the event that such water transfers are suspended, reduced, or otherwise impacted (e.g., increase in costs, etc.).
In addition, state water is not controlled by local communities, but rather its provision is controlled by the State, which can shut off supply unilaterally. SWP water can also be unilaterally suspended, reduced, or otherwise impacted (e.g., increase in costs, etc.). In the past and going forward, given a drought or other uncontrollable environmental condition, "at the SWP points of diversion, projected deliveries have been as low as five percent of allocated water." In such an instance, the City would need to purchase an additional drought buffer to take the full allotment, which at this time "would not be economically feasible for the community... and also may not be cost effective in terms of the enhancement to reliability that it provides." Reclamation would provide an important contingency in the event that such water transfers are suspended, reduced, or otherwise impacted (e.g., increase in costs, etc.)
Morro Bay could be left without ample water because of its failure to support a good new WWTP.
The City relies heavily on state water supplies. The California State Water Project (SWP) has long been controversial, partly because resource impacts are concentrated at the points of extraction, while the benefits of the water are realized by water users far way. This is the opposite of a locally sustainable water supply. It is not clear that such a program can ultimately meet the state's water supply needs in a way that appropriately protects resources, including concerns as the state's population continues to grow.
In short, there appears to be uncertainty in terms of the City's conclusion that it does not need to pursue recycled water because "the City has no water supply concerns," particularly when contingency planning for worst case scenarios are applied (e.g., suspension of state water, no desalinization, etc.) and intensified use of local groundwater basins are the last resort. As indicated above, the City turned to state water and desalinization after its Morro and Chorro Creek aquifer extractions led to near overdraft of these resources throughout times of drought in the area. Current monitoring is not complete and thus cannot conclusively demonstrate that minimum stream flows are always being maintained, and these resources suffer from nitrate issues currently.
A return to drought conditions would further exacerbate such issues and degrade such resources, as well as other freshwater systems that rely on them (like Morro and Chorro Creeks, etc.). In addition, others who use water from the groundwater basins, like agricultural operators, would also be relying on the same sources, again further exacerbating any such problems.
In any case, regardless of whether the applicant has accurately assessed the city's need for recycled water in the future, the LCP nevertheless identifies reclaimed water as the city's second-highest priority and requires that recycled water be an element of a WWTP project (see LUP Policy 3.08(5)).
The CCC report says that in summary, the development of new wastewater facilities offers an opportunity to the City of Morro Bay, much like the permitted development of a new wastewater facility in Los Osos. This project provides it the opportunity to improve the City's long-term water availability, allowing it to reduce its dependence on expensive, outdated and unreliable water sources. A newly devised plan for a WWTP that incorporated meaningful water reclamation and recycling would help conserve water in situ for habitat protection of sensitive species and bring the project into further compliance with LCP policies that state that water reclamation is the second highest priority for the City.
"Fortunately," the CCC report says, "there are alternative feasible sites for WWTP development in the area, including more inland sites evaluated by the Applicant, two of which, the Chevron and Righetti sites, were evaluated in some detail by the Applicant (see Exhibit 4). Of the two alternatives they evaluated, both are viable, but the Chevron site appears somewhat more constrained on certain evaluation criteria than does the Righetti site. Namely, the Chevron site presents some challenges to WWTP development, including potential landslide issues, public view issues (it is located adjacent to Highway 1), habitat issues (including related to Toro Creek, which runs along the northern edge of the property), and difficulties associated with reclamation (due to is location away from identified potential users).
"The Righetti alternative site appears to provide the best potential site of those evaluated by the Applicant for a new WWTP. The Applicant's analysis identified minimal potential for hazards and ESHA impacts at this site. It is also located inland in an area where it would not be expected to impact public recreational access and there are sitting and design options available to minimize impacts on visual resources. The site is agricultural land, which presents some concerns in terms of agricultural conversion, but it is also located in the County where such conversion is contemplated for public facilities like this where it is the least environmentally damaging feasible site (in the same way that the Los Osos WWTP was ultimately sited on agricultural lands). The potential for water reclamation/reuse is very high at this site, given its location in the agricultural service area, where the most potential for such reuse appears to exist. It presents some public viewshed challenges, being located in an area of hilly terrain and visual open space adjacent to Highway 41, but these do not appear insurmountable."
It appears the plant built on the Righetti property will cost some $12 million more to move it in order to move the MB/CSD plant there. However by clearing the the existing WWTP property on Estero Bay it could produce a net income benefit for MB/CSD. That is because MB/CSD could clear and develop that old site for use by tourists.
WWTP developer Steve Owen has said that he has been working with a major company to do exactly this in Oceanside, California. They are taking proposals to move their plant and reuse is a major element to offset the costs. A major motel chain is interested. In other words, the net benefit from removing an old facility provides a significant net financial benefit for the community and its residents. That has been an issue with the WWTP for some time but MB and CSD have refused to recognize it.
In conclusion, a WWTP project is needed to address ongoing coastal resource impacts, but a project at the existing WWTP site cannot be found consistent with the LCP and the Coastal Act. In fact, an LCP amendment would first be necessary to even make it an allowed use at the proposed location. The Commission's denial of the proposed project is not a denial of better treating wastewater in Morro Bay and Cayucos, rather it is a recognition of the constraints to WWTP development at the proposed site.
The Commission, its staff says, believes that a more sustainable facility located out of harm's way is feasible, and that the time and investment in that process is appropriate and necessary at this juncture. Commission staff is prepared to work with the applicant, the City, the RWQCB, the SWRCB, other agencies and interested parties to help foster a better overall project that can meet LCP requirements, enhance and protect water quality, and meet the community's needs over the longer term with a sustainable and beneficial public infrastructure project. LCP and Coastal Act consistency, and good coastal planning and public policy, require nothing less.
