AgdaPkt 2010-02-01 clsd and regular

Browse Search

7A - ATTACHMENT NO.3 Saltworks Proposal- Water Group Summary Report (22 January 2010) Page 3 source. Because the Saltworks project may need to rely on a range of water supply options, the viability of groundwater as a supply source at the site was evaluated. The water team concludes that insufficient information is available to confirm the feasibility of obtaining 700 AFY at the site. OMB indicated that reverse osmosis would be needed to treat groundwater, and the water team concurs that treatment of this type would likely be needed. Substantial additional study would be needed to establish the reliable groundwater yield and impacts of groundwater pumping. · Rainwater and graywater - While the project may develop and use these supply sources, they cannot be counted on as reliable supply for purposes of meeting project demand due to their lack of reliability as predictable and sustainable supply sources. · Local and regional offsets -Implementing offset projects either within the City or SFPUC service areas has the potential to realize significant, reliable long-term potable water supply. Numerous factors would have to be defined and resolved to realize this supply, including enlisting cooperating partners, carrying out agreements with individuals and agencies including in some cases the SFPUC, and permitting and CEQA compliance. · OMB surface water transfer - The OMB proposes to utilize a transfer of Nickel Family water for the Saltworks project. This proposal was not included in the OMB application materials to the City. OMB provided information about the proposal to the water team later than other materials. Nickel water appears to be quite reliable. The amount of Nickel water owned by OMB (8,393 AFY) is greater than the estimated potable demand of the Saltworks project (1,825 AFY). OMB owns the Nickel water for 70 years. The proposal requires participation and approval of other public agencies. The proposal also requires further details regarding infrastructure requirements necessary to facilitate the transfer. These details depend in part on the identity of the other participating agencies. The proposal is complex, is likely to be controversial, and faces a number of hurdles. In particular, the participation and approval of other public agencies cannot be assured. Nonetheless, the proposal appears to be potentially feasible. The water team regards Nickel water as an asset that would diversify the City's water supply portfolio. The analysis was conducted to a depth and level of detail considered by the authors sufficient to evaluate project feasibility, policy issues, and project implementation uncertainties that would be evident from the information available at this preliminary point in the project development process and within the scope of this water demand and supply analysis. Information from the City's public record on the project and other sources was obtained and reviewed. Clarification was sought from sources through meetings, telephone calls and correspondence. This information was then evaluated by one or more report authors using methods appropriate for each area of analysis. Policy issues and implementation uncertainties identified herein represent those identified by the authors in the course of their analyses. Should the City and OMB choose to proceed with a complete environmental review (Le., preparation of an environmental impact report), identification and evaluation of additional policy and implementation issues would be expected. Likewise, the apparent feasibility based on this analysis does not assure project implementation even if the City were to grant all necessary approvals. Numerous other public agencies have discretionary permitting authority over the project and one or more such agencies could deny an approval such that the project could not be constructed as proposed. The report authors do not purport to predict or assure any particular outcome of future permitting processes. ES-2