Within the Cambria community, there are two views of the intended use of the Community Services District’s advanced water treatment facility: Either it’s meant to support future growth, or it serves as insurance in the event of a drought.
The facility’s current permit, which is temporary, says it can only run during a stage 3 water shortage emergency. But the district board is in the process of getting a permanent permit, and officials say they initiated another recent name-change discussion to bring the community together after years of debate surrounding the facility’s name and function.
On March 11, the board approved renaming the 7-year-old Emergency Water Supply Project, aka the Sustainable Water Facility, to the Water Reclamation Facility—despite a majority of public commenters wanting its name to be changed back to the original name. District staff will give the board a report later in April with a timeline for implementing the name change.
During the meeting’s public comment period, resident Crosby Swartz said the facility should be operated only when water shortage emergency conditions have been declared.
“For this reason, the facility’s original name—Emergency Water Supply—is the most accurate way to identify the purpose of function,” he said.
His wife, Laura Swartz, echoed her husband’s comments and added that when former board President Gail Robinette urged ratepayers to support the Emergency Water Supply Project, Robinette referred to it as an insurance policy.
“Insurance policies are purchased for emergencies, hence the name. Don’t use our insurance policy for everyday use,” she said.
In a 2016 interview, Robinette told New Times that when the district received the emergency coastal development permit for the Emergency Water Supply Project from SLO County, the first paragraphs of the permit stated that after six months the district needed to seek a permanent permit.
The district has been working on getting that permit to this day.
The requirement to get an emergency permit—which would eventually need to become permanent—caused a rift between the community and the district board, General Manager John Weigold said.
“There’s controversy around how that was done. There are people from one of the active groups in town that argue it was done in a back room and not in the public, it was named the Sustainable Water Facility without being debated,” Weigold said. “So all of that contributed to an issue of trust within the community, that still exists today.”
The recent topic of again renaming the facility, he said, was part of an effort to regain trust, establish continued transparency, and bring the community together.
District board President Cindy Steidel said during the March 11 meeting that from her personal perspective, any name the board considers should be neutral in nature—something that would represent its functional performance and that all members of the community can embrace.
During the meeting, district board members repeatedly stated that the planned discussion was not about the facility’s project description; however, the conversation consistently reverted back to that.
“The bigger issue though, is what are we going to use this thing for,” Weigold said.
Weigold joined the district in 2019 and said the board asked him to seek a permanent permit for the facility, which would enable the district to operate “as we see fit.”
“Now ‘as we see fit’ depends on the parameters that the board will ultimately give me,” he said.
Part of the application for a permanent permit calls for an environmental impact report (EIR); so instead of paying for an entirely new one, Weigold said some information was carried over from the original project’s EIR. That project description assumed that a certain number of additional homes could be supported by the treatment plant over a period of time.
“The no-growth group points to that as the ‘aha!’ They view that as more evidence that somebody is going to try to build more homes here,” Weigold said. “I can tell you from my perspective, let’s get the permit to operate it within our control, and then we’ll come up with some rules of when we should operate it.”
The Water Reclamation Facility has two goals, Weigold said. The first is to provide water in a drought situation or anytime the water table gets low.
He added that the second goal is one that people miss: to provide a barrier underground to prevent saltwater intrusion into the community’s aquifer.
“Imagine if saltwater intruded into the main place where we get 80 percent of our water: They would render those underwater wells unusable. And then we have a huge problem,” Weigold said.
Rather than allowing that problem to develop, Weigold said he views the facility as an insurance policy to preserve the water supply the community depends on.
But that insurance policy has come at a significant price and has hit several bumps in the road since its establishment.
According to Weigold’s recent manager’s report, the construction cost of the Water Reclamation Facility is $12.7 million. Of that total, $4.4 million was covered in grant funding and $8.9 million in loan funding.
Each year, the district budgets about $1.2 million to run the plant, according to the report—including ongoing maintenance and operations, repayment of the loan, and reserves for two months of operation.
The district’s been paying back the loan since February 2015. According to the report, nearly $2.2 million has been paid in principal and $2.1 million in interest. The remaining balance on the facility’s loan is $6.7 million with a final payoff date of August 2034.
Over the years, community members have raised concerns about the construction and operations costs and the issue of the facility’s faulty brine pond.
The district contracted CDM Smith, a Boston-based construction and engineering firm, to build the water facility. The firm proposed making an evaporation pond to store and dispose of brine and related material generated from the water treatment plant.
But a heavy rainstorm in 2017 caused surface water to flood into the pond, and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a cease and desist order against its use.
A year later, the Cambria Community Services District filed a lawsuit against CDM Smith for damages and bad equipment due to faulty work. That lawsuit was settled on Jan. 21, 2021, for nearly $1.8 million, which the district set aside in a savings reserve.
The faulty brine pond was decommissioned, and Weigold said the district has no plans to take it apart because that could cost upwards of a million dollars. If and when the plant is operated, he said, the brine waste would just be disposed of somewhere else—at an additional cost.
Despite the setback, the district applied for a permanent coastal development permit for the treatment facility in 2020. It’s currently conducting supplemental tests and studies requested by SLO County and the California Coastal Commission, and Weigold said he anticipates that they’ll finish their part of the permit process by the end of 2021.
He said he believes the district will probably have a permanent permit by next spring.
“That’s not the end of the story. We’ve already been told by some residents that they plan to appeal regardless of what happens,” Weigold said. “And who knows how long that will take.” Δ
Staff Writer Karen Garcia can be reached at kgarcia@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Apr 1-11, 2021.
Put that cost at, conservatively, more than $18 million, as compiled by CSD Board Memeber and former Board President Harry Farmer. The project — that “thing”– has spent Cambria into a deep hole of debt. Including interest, Cambria still owes more than $9 million. The Wastewater Treatment Plant needs millions in updating and the rusted out water system springs constant leaks. No money to pay for those fixes, with over $1 million a year going to the Emergency Water Supply Project, which still isn’t working. The Coastal Development Permit application was submitted — after seven years — only 13 percent complete. None of the documents required by the county to complete it has been submitted since the first application was submitted, July 2020.
The idea that with sea rise this machine or ten additional machines will ever stuff enough water down into the aquifer to stop intrusion is ludicrous. Additionally this machine provides zero for fire suppression, we currently have enough elevated water to fight maybe two house fires in one day, then wait overnight for recharge. Not very useful when your town presents like Paridise CA did! Without addressing fire suppression, more building here is completely reckless.
Karen please see the website protectcambria.com for a more complete story on this issue. Thanks
For some of us in Cambria, concern for environmental integrity and protection is a major element in our oversight of the emergency water facility. Withdrawing millions of gallons from the San Simeon aquifer for humans’ use and its effects on the lagoon, creek and watershed is given pathetically scant attention. Too many people still assume that “resources” are infinite on Earth and lying around waiting to be grabbed for human interests only. Here in Cambria the Santa Rosa Creek watershed and aquifer are subject to the same assumption. The district’s attention to endangered species, ecological balance, and climate crisis escapes reason.
Another strand of article made me laugh, because I’ve learned that the CCSD General Manager and the Board’s President don’t think much attention should be paid to interest on loans. The General Manager did not mention in his report that the $8.9 million loan for the water facility came with an additional $4 million in interest. Their response to my citizen oversight letter was quite condescending.
1) Settlement money from CDM Smith as stated above is the gross amount. The community has no read out of the actual costs involved in the litigation or the net figure of this settlement. 2) Western Alliance who financed this project has a clause all changes to this project must be prior approved this would encompass the name of the plant. 3) As far as the Coastal Permit 13% to date is complete the permit should be pulled or trashed as written.. 4)The project is on environment sensitive property and the Coastal Commission is watching …… 5) Cambria needs fire protection not a black hole project.
Interesting that this article should appear in the April 1 edition–April Fool’s Day!
Cambria ratepayers were fooled when this rush to judgment project was announced as the answer to drought issues in our village in early 2014, following one of the worst drought years in California history. The name given to the project was the Emergency Water Supply (EWS); a brackish water desalination plant that was purported to produce 250 acre-feet of water within a 6-month period–so far, it has not proven to be capable of doing that.
It was partially paid for through a lease-sales-agreement (not a traditional loan”) bearing a high interest rate due to the District’s poor credit score rating. The total amount of the 20-year loan with interest, amounted to $13.4 million, with annual payments of $660,00 to be made for the duration of the loan through 2034. The District’s assets and Cambrians’ property taxes were put up as collateral. In addition, the District received Proposition 84 grant funding in the amount of $4.3 million.
The day the District received the Prop. 84 funding, a press memo was released with a new name for the project: the Sustainable Water Facility (SWF). The new name was not discussed by the Board in front of the public, and the purpose and intent were changed from the EWS, which was strictly to address Declared Level 3 Drought Emergencies, to a facility that could also provide water for growth and in so doing, begin addressing the 665+ parcels on the District’s Water Wait List. (Interesting concept, since the District’s license for its San Simeon Aquifer diversion allocation, was reduced from 1,230-acre feet a year(afy) to 799 afy).
The District has had multiple issues with the project, including the decommissioning of the impoundment basin used for the disposal of the brine waste. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) placed a cease and desist order in mid-2017, when, due to flooding in Jan. 2017, the basin had significant issues which resulted in its being decommissioned by the RWQCB. In 2018, the CCSD sued the engineering firm, CDM Smith, for $3.5 million due to design flaws with the impoundment basin. The lawsuit was recently settled and the District received approximately $1.7 million.
At a March 11, 2021, CCSD Board meeting, an item to address yet another name for the facility was on the agenda: “4C. Discussion and Consideration Regarding Renaming the Facility Presently Known as the Sustainable Water Facility (SWF).” The public was allowed to comment PRIOR to the Board’s discussion to rename the facility but had no say in the names being discussed by the Board and their decision to rename the facility as the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). At one point, the name Water Treatment Facility was mentioned, but a director thought the acronym (WTF), might be problematic? The facility has also been referred to as the Advanced Water Treatment Plant (AWTP) as well as the Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF). Interestingly, all of the names that have been attached to the facility have no permit with the exception of the initially named Emergency Water Supply (EWS) — a 6-month permit granted from SLO County Planning in May of 2014 for the facility to be built–it was completed in November of 2014. The District is in the process of completing an application for a regular Coastal Development Permit (CDP), almost seven years since it first applied for one in June 2014!
Cambria ratepayers have been subjected to numerous rate increases, primarily due to ongoing costs related to the facility.
Since the facility was built it has not supplied Cambrians with water; Cambrians conserved heroically during the most recent years of drought, and our water use has decreased as a result of it. The plant was run for “tracer tests” to test the plant, but not for consumption by ratepayers–we haven’t needed it! My water bill has doubled since the plant was built and yet I don’t receive a drop of water from it. The facility has been mothballed since December 2016.
The District has other issues with the plant. They initially thought they could use an existing ocean outfall near Cambria to dispose of the brine waste; that has not turned out to be the case. Trucking the brine waste is the District’s alternative, but it is incredibly expensive–trucking and hauling costs under the District’s two disposal scenarios–20,000 gallons per day (gpd) and 50,000 gpd could cost approximately $1.1 million to 4.5 million annually. To date, the District hasn’t trucked a single drop of brine waste to a licensed facility. The Regional Water Quality Control Board approved a plan when the impoundment basin was being decommissioned for the District to blend the brine waste with treated wastewater and pump it into their percolation ponds.
This is where Cambria’s ratepayers are today, this April Fool’s Day — still being taken for fools and with no end in sight!
“The remaining balance on the facility’s loan is $6.7 million with a final payoff date of August 2034,” is what Ms. Garcia learned from CCSD General Manager John Wiegold. That number is highly misleading. Ratepayers should know that once again, Mr. Weigold has stated only the amount of the PRINCIPAL of the loan balance. When interest is included, the remaining balance that ratepayers are obligated to is over $9. million. Stating only the principal portion of what ratepayers owe is highly misleading….once again. Such misleading information from the current (and previous) general manager(s) is one reason for informed ratepayers’ mistrust.
dfffddf