Laserfiche WebLink
The following tables show the opinion of probable cost based on two studies. <br />2014 — Alternative Water Supply Analysis from CDM Smith Study <br />Additional <br />Demand <br />(mgd) <br />Reservoir Size <br />(acres) <br />Land Acquisition <br />Cost <br />($ millions) <br />Capital Cost <br />($ millions) <br />Total Annual <br />0&M Cost <br />($ millions) <br />Unit Production <br />Cost <br />($/1,000 gal) <br />3.74 <br />44 <br />0.6 <br />80 <br />2.2 <br />5.17 , <br />5.02 <br />64 <br />0.76 <br />81 <br />3.1 <br />4.37 <br />10.82 <br />132 <br />1.42 <br />104 <br />1 3.2 <br />2.41 <br />2015 — Osprey Marsh Expansion Analysis from CDM Smith Study <br />Additional <br />Reservoir Size <br />Land Acquisition <br />Capital Cost <br />Total Annual <br />Unit Production <br />Demand <br />(acres) <br />Cost <br />($ millions) <br />0&M Cost <br />Cost <br />(mgd) <br />($ millions) <br />($ millions) <br />($/1,000 gal) <br />5.0 <br />48 <br />1 <br />89 <br />. 5.2 <br />5.69 <br />Prior to moving forward with the acquisition of any parcel or parcels, staff would strongly recommend <br />conducting a due diligence study such as the one done for the Osprey Marsh Expansion. Beyond land <br />use requirements, environmental considerations, geotechnical investigation, vulnerability, and security, <br />the due diligence should also include the following: <br />• Modeling to determine available volume of water in canal system; potentially a pilot study; <br />• Negotiations with the various drainage districts to secure withdrawal permits and pump <br />station/transmission piping ROW; pre -application meetings with regulatory agencies; <br />emergency discharge before/after hurricane or heavy rainfall event; <br />• Negotiations with property owners; final site selection; preparation of purchase agreements; <br />ROW agreements for pipelines; <br />• Preliminary design of the reservoir, piping and treatment; <br />The nature of a study such as this is complicated, expensive and time intensive. A critical challenge faced <br />by utilities contemplating these emerging water supply options is that they appearto be quite expensive <br />relative to the current water supply source. The key question is whether there are benefits associated <br />with these options that justify the added financial expense. Finding new and affordable sources of <br />potable Water and improving the management of existing supplies are among the most fundamental <br />challenges facing utilities. <br />It may be more prudent to await the results of the CUP modification request (in progress) to determine <br />the best path forward. The County currently has sufficient capabilities to physically produce over 20 <br />MGD which would be more than enough water production should the regulatory allowance be given. <br />FUNDING: <br />Staff has not budgeted any funds for land acquisition, detailed design, and construction of a surface <br />water reservoir/treatment facility. Typically, rate making practice requires reasonable relationships <br />between benefits, costs and charges for services; as such, it would be outside practice norms to set rates <br />without these relationships. The general practice when addressing future utility funding requirements is <br />121 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@68233F7B\@BCL@68233F7B.docx <br />