MENDOCINO CO., 12/7/24 – Presenting to a packed house on Tuesday night, consultants hired by the Mendocino City Community Services District, overseers of the coastal community’s water, said that the town is facing a water deficit that cannot be met by existing water sources.
Adam Rausch, a senior resource engineer with the consulting firm GHD, said that less than half of Mendocino’s “Maximum Day Demand” of 534,000 gallons – meaning 85 gallons per day per person – could be met by current supplies. In fact, supplies would not even meet an “Average Day Demand” of 356,000 gallons per day, the study found.
The purpose of Tuesday’s meeting was to solicit community input on the findings in GHD’s draft Source Water Study and to discuss what to do about them. And the community showed up.
District board chair Dennak Murphy said that in his four years of service he had never “seen a crowd this big” or “maybe even half this crowd.” District superintendent Ryan Rhoades said it was “the best turnout in MCCSD history.” People also attended the hybrid meeting via Zoom.
Along with estimating future demands, the GHD study identified sources of water and outlined the problems with each.
Surface water, such as rivers and reservoirs, could meet the deficit but would require extensive permits and the construction of unsightly storage facilities.
Existing groundwater sources are insufficient to meet the need. “Significant land use or land acquisition would be required,” the study says, to dig new wells. Those well fields “would be large and not centrally located,” making it difficult to create a community delivery system. Desalination is expensive and endangers fragile ecosystems.
And recycled water, generally not potable, could only address a small part of the deficit.
Rausch said there is “a case to be made for a combination of groundwater and surface water” being “the most cost-effective solution” if that is what the community wants.
A lively question and answer session followed the GHD presentation, first from district board members and then from the in-person and Zoom audiences.
Board member Ishvi Aum suggested that the study area, which covered the current MCCSD service area and a one-mile radius around it, be expanded for purposes of identifying additional water sources, an idea that seemed to have some traction with the audience.
“Locations outside the coastal zone” need to be considered in creating potential reservoirs, Aum said, to make the permitting process easier.
A reservoir outside the current district service area would require the community to “bite the bullet for a slightly longer pipeline,” Aum said, but added that state funding is available.
Board member Jim Sullivan expressed concern over ongoing operation and maintenance costs for a system that relies on surface water, as well as the problem of adequate storage, even if the state funded the initial costs. As an audience member pointed out, ongoing costs would be paid for by community members’ monthly bills.
A consensus of sorts appeared to emerge against the desalination option, particularly if the water comes from Big River. Local resident Sandra Kearney reminded everyone that the river is still recovering from decades of exploitation by the logging industry. A biologist in the audience said that efforts to desalinate Big River water would be “catastrophic.”
“Any system” for community water distribution “should not affect Big River,” Kearney said to applause from the audience.
An alternative offshore desalination method that uses wave power is now undergoing pilot-testing in Fort Bragg and may still be on the table for Mendocino. According to the GHD study, the project is showing a “high level of sustainability and efficiency, highlighting the ability to do no damage to the coastal ecosystems.”
Board member Matthew Miksak asked the consultants why locals who have “excellent” wells should join in a community water system. Rausch pointed out that “a unified water system that works together can be more responsive in case of a fire or other emergency.”
Besides, he noted, a good well today may not be one tomorrow. “The more tied together we are, the better, when some kind of change occurs,” Rausch said. Particularly given uncertainties created by a changing climate, there needs to be “a communal pot that everyone can draw from.”
The recycling option piqued interest, even though the draft study concludes that recycled water can meet only “a small fraction” of the demand. The study did not consider treating recycled water to the point where it would be drinkable – the “toilet to tap” option – because of uncertainty about whether the community “has the stomach” for that, Rausch said. Kearney and others suggested that GHD look at the idea again.
In response to a question about limiting water use, Mendocino residents are already “better at conservation than the average California community,” Rausch said. But more conservation efforts, including a “use more, pay more” fee structure, could be “baked in” to any solution.
Audience input included smaller scale ideas such as decentralized rainwater collection. Rausch acknowledged that “smaller steps” could be helpful.
Cost estimates for a community water system are very rough at this point, ranging from $6.5 million to $15 million-plus just for capital construction. But whatever the ultimate solution, there is state money available, at least for now.
The initial draft study was funded by the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resiliency (SAFER) Drinking Water Program through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and there is more where that came from. As far as the state’s funding priorities for water projects, Rausch affirmed that “the Mendocino community is in the top category because of its water problems in the past, meaning that capital construction costs could be covered up to 100%.”
“This is the kind of project the state wants to be funded,” Rausch said, with “up to $20M and potentially more” available for the initial capital outlays and “up to $80,000” for each residence to connect to a new system.
Senior Water Resource Control Engineer Tara Ouitavon, with the State Water Resources Control Board, explained that residents can opt out of a community system but will have to pay their own connection costs if they change their minds later.
GHD plans to finalize the source water study by Feb. 28, 2025. They’ll then turn to solutions, with a draft engineering report laying out alternative water system options and cost estimates by March 14. There will be a second community forum on Apr. 22, with a final engineering report expected by June 6.
Board president Murphy emphasized that “there is no action tonight, and there would be no decision to move forward with a community water system without a vote of the electorate in the district.”