minutes

South Bay Irrigation District

December 16, 2002

The Board of Directors of South Bay Irrigation District held a regular meeting on Monday, December 16, 2002, at the Sweetwater Authority Administrative Office, 505 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, California. President Wolniewicz called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.

· ROLL CALL

Directors Present: Doud, Pocklington, Welsh, Wolniewicz and Wright

Directors Absent: None.

Others Present: General Manager Sorensen, Operations Manager Dennis Bostad, Legal Counsel Peggy Strand, and Board Secretary Marisa Farpón-Friedman. Sweetwater Authority staff Michael Garrod, Hank Gaus, Mary Ann Mann, Mark Rogers, George Silva, Jim Smyth and Don Thomson. Also, Sweetwater Authority Directors Beauchamp and Waters.

· PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Director Pocklington conducted the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

· OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT (Government Code Section (54954.3)
There was no comment from the public.

· CHAIR’S PRESENTATION
Director Welsh administered the oaths of affirmation to newly reelected Board Members Bud Pocklington and Ski Wolniewicz.

ACTION AGENDA

1. PRESENTATION BY DAN ASKENAIZER, PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST, MONTGOMERY WATSON HARZA.
Update to Safe Drinking Water Act.

Operations Manager Bostad introduced Bill Moser from Montgomery Watson Harza, who is the consultant Project Manager for the Robert A. Perdue Water Treatment Plant improvements. Mr. Moser introduced Dan Askenaizer.

Mr. Askenaizer thanked the Board for allowing him to give the presentation, which would give an overview of current regulations for disinfection byproducts and microbial contaminants. Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate drinking water quality by setting a maximum contaminate level (MCL). The MCL will determine how frequently water is monitored, how compliance is determined, how the information is reported, etc. Mr. Askenaizer proceeded to give a short overview of where we are and how we got to this point.

The trihalomethane (THM) standard for disinfectant byproducts was promulgated in 1979. In 1989, the EPA approved the Surface Water Treatment Rule which sets standards of treatment for Cryptosporidium (protozoan) and Giardia viruses. In the early 1990s, EPA struggled to balance microbial disinfection requirements with the risk associated with disinfection byproducts. They wanted to tighten up the THM standard and were looking at additional regulations. Microbials have an acute short-term health effect while disinfection byproducts might have long-term health effects, primarily cancer. EPA decided to use a Federal Law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA, that let them form a committee with a group of stakeholders to negotiate the regulations. The Committee represents water utilities, state and local health departments, environmental groups, public interest groups, and chemical and equipment manufacturers.

A first FACA committee meeting was held in 1992-93 to discuss the set of regulations. Out of that process, in 1998 they had the final stage I Disinfection/Disinfection Byproduct (D/DBP) rule and the interim Surface Water Treatment rule (SWTR). Compliance of this new regulation began in January of 2002. The most recent FACA recommendations for another set of rules that will build on the previous rules were completed in 2000. Those sets of recommendations, around 20 pages, will be implemented during the next 5-10 years. About a month ago, the EPA gave its latest assessment. They are about two years behind schedule of what they were supposed to comply with under the law. EPA says that a proposed rule will come out about mid-2003. The final rules should be done in late 2004, and compliance will begin about 3 years after that.

The new regulations include a Stage 1D/DBP rule with compliance in January of this year (2002). The THM standard from 1979 has been made more stringent. There are also new standards for HAAs (Haloacidic acids), Bromate, and Chlorite. Bromate is a byproduct of ozone disinfection and chlorite is a byproduct of chlorine dioxide. Another interesting aspect of this regulation is the enhanced coagulation requirement. The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment rule came into effect in January of 2002. This regulation focuses on turbidity removal and basically requires all utilities across the country to achieve a 2-log reduction or 99 percent removal of particulates. Instead of measuring for cryptosporidium, if the agency meets the turbidity and the combined effluent (less than 0.3 NTU [National Turbidity Units]) 95 percent of time) it gets credit for 2 logs removal. In addition, the federal rule for the first time required systems to monitor individual filter performance.

With regard to the development of the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBP), another FACA meeting was held in March 1999 and it reconvened in September of 2000. They met monthly for about a year. The environmentalists and the water utility people negotiated and hammered out the agreement, based on which the EPA is developing these regulations.

The Stage 2 D/DBP Rule states that the maximum contaminant levels are not going to change. The committee felt that there was not enough information to support lowering the numbers. However, they did some things that when implemented will make the MCLs much more stringent. They will require utilities to reevaluate their sample locations in their distribution system and find worst case locations for the production of byproducts. This will be accomplished through an “initial distribution system evaluation” or IDSE. This will be a one-year fairly intensive monitoring program to gather data in terms of finding these new locations. The basic requirement of the regulation today is that each water treatment plant has to have four distribution system locations. Sweetwater Authority has two treatment plants and eight locations in its distribution system. The rule says that three of those locations represent average residence time, and one of the sites must represent a maximum residence time.

The second change is the method to determine compliance. It will be a Locational Running Annual Average as opposed to a Running Annual Average. Samples have to be collected 90 days apart as opposed to collecting samples on a quarterly basis. Mr. Askenaizer explained in more detail how the quarterly averages would be calculated.

With regards to the long-term (2) Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, there are 24 months of cryptosporidium monitoring in the source water. We will then get classified based on that level. If more treatment is necessary, based on the classification, there is a toolbox of available control measures for meeting the treatment requirements, such as watershed control, treatment, and filter performance. There are four possibilities for classification. If we are in the lowest classification, Bin 1, we are not required to do any further treatment. If we get into the higher levels of classification, which is at a higher risk and greater vulnerability for cryptosporidium, we are required to provide more treatment than we are currently doing. Some of these treatment options are watershed control, treatment, membranes, chlorine dioxide, ultraviolet disinfection, and ozone.

The EPA is scheduled to propose the Stage 2 DBP Rule and the LT (2) ESWTR by the end of 2004. The monitoring report for the distribution system (IDSE) is due at the end of 2006 and the Crypto Monitoring at the end of 2007. If, based on the reports more treatment is required, it must be on line in 2010. There is a possibility of a two-year extension so it could be pushed out to 2012. In terms of meeting the schedule, the EPA gave a briefing to the FACA committee last week and updated them. The schedule got delayed partially due to the arsenic issue, as staff and resources were utilized with regard to that issue. The EPA wants to give it to the Office of Management and Budget very soon and it will take 90 days to review it.

Mr. Moser then took over his part of the presentation. He said that the goal was to provide Sweetwater Authority with a master plan of what processes can be at the plant, where they will be located, and what the impacts are. They will look at alternatives and, after a three-month study, they will produce an informal report on all the alternatives and how they are evaluated.

He said that they could have upgrades or modifications to the plant, including flocculation, sedimentation and filtration, conversion to Sodium Hypochlorite, and replacement clearwell. New disinfectant options include ozone, ultraviolet light (UV), and chlorine dioxide. When the water quality studies began a couple of years ago, UV was not viewed as a highly probable process to implement because there was not any data or approval process at the time. Times are changing and it is looking more likely that UV might be incorporated in the water treatment process. Chlorine dioxide is a preoxidant to the treatment process and it should be investigated. The Chlorine contact basin is another option to give better control when you have added ammonia to stop the formation of THM. Another plant improvement option is to provide solids removal capabilities.

Their goal is to design criteria that will work in the industry and which they have found in the year-long pilot testing. They will do site layouts with two alternatives, each at 30 and 45 million gallons a day (MGD). They will then take the most recent version of the schedule for design cost, construction, and operation, with a full range of potential treatment processes. This includes the addition of chlorine dioxide, rapid mix, flocculation/ sedimentation, intermediate ozone, filters, UV, chlorine contactor, and clearwell. If this plan were implemented, we would have multi-barrier disinfection capabilities and would meet disinfection byproducts regulations. It was noted that ozone has improved taste and odor capabilities.

Mr. Moser talked about two potential alternatives. One would be Intermediate ozone at the end of the existing sedimentation, which would then flow to the filters, and the UV would follow the filters. For this alternative they would use the site of the existing clearwell. They would have to take the clearwell out of service while they build a UV facility, a portion of the new clearwell with the chlorine contactor in it, and then the rest of that clearwell. The solids handling would be on the adjacent side. One thing he does not like about this alternative is that the clearwell would be out of service while this construction is being done. In his opinion, a better way would be building the ozone without taking any part of the plant out of service, except to make the connections. The UV would be built adjacent to the existing clearwell, followed by half of the clearwell and the chlorine contactor portion of it and, once put into service, the clearwell would be taken out of service. Then build the second half of the new clearwell and use the area for the solids handling. This would be done at 30 mgd and at 45 mgd. It will have to be determined which way would make more sense and have the less impact to the operation of the plant, and what are the relative costs between building these two sequences. He said that a more expensive alternative might be chosen simply to keep the plant in better operation with less impact on the people. The goal would be to have a site plan laid out so that whatever combination of treatment processes are chosen, we would meet the goals in terms of water quality.

At 4:35 p.m., President Wolniewicz called for a 5-minute break. The meeting was called back to order at 4:40 p.m., with all members of the Board in attendance.

2. ITEMS TO BE ADDED, WITHDRAWN OR REORDERED TO THE AGENDA
(Government Code Section 54956.5)

President Wolniewicz requested to brief the Board on the ACWA meeting and also to reorder items 8 and 9 to this point in the agenda.

Regarding ACWA, the big issue was that Steve Hall got a 5 percent raise along with everyone else. This raise includes the cost of living. Mike Machado was there and thanked us for backing Proposition 50. Newspaper articles on issues were distributed to Board members.

Reporting on LAFCO, Director Wolniewicz said that the new Chair would be Jacobs and the Vice Chair Patty Davis. He then talked briefly about the review committee for special districts.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Director Doud made a motion, seconded by Director Pocklington, that the Board approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 18, 2002. The motion carried.

4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND WARRANTS

Director Wright made a motion, seconded by Director Doud, that warrant numbers 9922 through 9933 be approved. The motion carried.

5. NEW BUSINESS

A. Appointment of Officers for 2003.

President Wolniewicz made a motion, seconded by Director Doud, that the following officers be appointed for 2003:

President: Bud Pocklington
Vice President: Margaret Welsh
Treasurer: Wanda Avery
Deputy Treasurer: Cary Wright
Secretary/Controller: Marisa Farpón-Friedman

The motion carried, with Director Wright abstaining. Director Wright offered the following comments and requested that they be recorded verbatim:

“There is no handout with our agenda that says who has had the Chairs. For both this Board and Sweetwater you would think that I have either resigned or retired. This Board consistently bypasses me for the Chairs. I think the record will show, and certainly some Boards do, that the senior person retains the job as Chairman or President for several years. Several years back we changed that policy and I questioned it at the time, but it became routine that we rotate the officers, and that was done. We kept the peace in these assignments on our selection for officers of the Boards and on travel meetings, but maybe it’s time we break the peace. I don’t think the Board has been fair with me, I don’t know of any reason for it, but I plan to pursue this with staff, contemporaries, and agencies, unless somebody has a good reason for the revised procedure. So, if you put that in the minutes in verbatim, I plan to take it up with other selected water agency boards. Thank you.”

B. Membership renewal with California Special Districts Association.

Director Pocklington made a motion, seconded by Director Wright, that the Governing Board appprove membership renewal with California Special Districts Association for the year 2003. The motion carried.

6. APPROVAL OF DIRECTORS’ ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

There was nothing to report.

7. REPORT OF TREASURER

There was nothing to add to the written report.

8. REPORT OF LAFCO SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER

Reordered to Item 2.

9. REPORT OF LAFCO SPECIAL DISTRICTS REGULAR MEMBER

No report was offered.

10. REPORT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTATIVE

Director Pocklington referred to the IID negotiations and said that Maureen Stapleton was in Las Vegas dealing with the Colorado group and that Interior Secretary Gale Norton would be speaking to the group today. He also mentioned that SDCWA staff are working with other agencies to get water from Skinner and also are pursuing the chlorine dioxide issue to make sure that it takes care of the taste and odor. He referred to the Regional Water Facility Master Plan and noted that there would be a workshop on the 9th and there will be discussions on the following issues:

· Establish the reliability standards
· Determine whether additional levels of service reliability are needed and what those levels should be (desalination plant)
· Establish new pricing structures if there are levels of service reliability that differ from the current levels
· Annexation policy regarding lands generally beyond existing boundaries of the Authority’s member agencies.

Director Pocklington then discussed the fiscal policy and the $6.7 million that the CWA might be returning to the agencies. He thinks there is a good possibility that there will be additional monies available sometime after February. SDCWA gave back $7.2 million in 2001, and MWD gave $8.7 million in 2002. He noted that there is a special board meeting on the 19th at 1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m., basically to deal with the uncertainty of the IID Transfer.

11. DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS

There were no comments from directors. General Manager Sorensen thanked the Board for 25 years of service. He said that this was his last South Bay Irrigation District meeting and he appreciated all that they have done for him.

12. CLOSED SESSION

There was no need for a closed session.

13. ADJOURNMENT

With no further business before the Board, President Wolniewicz adjourned the meeting at 4:56 p.m., to the hour of 3:30 p.m., on January 20, 2003.