Last night’s Sanitation District Informational meeting was long, sometimes frustrating and packed with information. The Sanitation District staff rejected my Alternate Plan by questioning the accuracy of their own Chloride reduction numbers in the EIR. That opens the door to re-evaluating and validating the data using imperial information obtained as a result of the Water Softener ban results to date. So my plan is not DOA yet. I need to crunch the numbers to determine the viability of my Alternative 5, and if appropriate resubmit it at the Public Hearing . I addition, there was an important clarification about how the chloride standards are applied to the different options. Alternate 1, 2 and 3 are required to comply with 100 mg/ltr, the historic level of chloride in the river in 1975, measured at the output of the water treatment plants. Alternate 4 is a proposed solution providing additional benefits to the watershed using a standard of 117 mg/ltr measured at the Ventura County line. The proposed Alternate 4 plan and standard of 117 mg/ltr has not, at this time, been approved by the Regional Water Board. It is therefore the most risky option and potentially the highest cost. Also, included in Alternate 1, 2 and 3 are costs for a blending pipeline that may not be required. The comparative costs do not include “lifecycle costs” which, when added, may change the ordering of the Options relative to cost. But the most interesting question was, if Alternate 1, 2 and 3 are sized to accommodate the water treatment plants at capacity, shouldn’t the reserve capacity be paid for by the Capital Improvement Fund (connection fees) and not the current rate payers? We will have to wait for the official answer. In short, I plan to look into each of these items and ready myself for the public hearings. This issue is just too important to our Santa Clarita resident’s future to ignore.
Posted on: Fri, 24 May 2013 19:09:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015