[00:00:03]
OKAY, WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.[1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/MOMENT OF SILENCE]
THREE O'CLOCK.PLEASE JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR ONE NATION UNDER GOD, ANY LIBERTY OF JUSTICE.
[2. ROLL CALL]
WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE ROLL CALL? MAYOR BLO.[3.a. AB 3172 Discussion/possible direction regarding the Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WWRP) Facility Plan with presentation by Carollo Engineers, Inc. on WWRP capacity, PFAS treatment, and possible options for reclaimed water delivery and Advanced Water Purification.]
BUSINESS.DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING THE WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PLANT, UH, FACILITY PLAN WITH PRESENTATION BY, UH, CARELLO ENGINEERS INC.
ON THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
TREATMENT AND POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR RECLAIMED BORDER DELIVERY AND ADVANCE WATER PURIFICATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COUNSELORS.
UH, WE ARE HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE OF OUR WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PLANT FACILITY PLAN.
UM, AS YOU'LL RECALL, WE'RE FACED WITH DECISIONS ON WHAT TO DO WITH OUR FUTURE AFFLUENT MANAGEMENT LONG TERM.
UM, AND DURING THE FY 25 BUDGET SESSIONS, WE IDENTIFIED EITHER WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME RECHARGE WELLS, OR WE NEED TO MAKE SOME SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR IRRIGATION.
UM, WE HELD OFF ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE PROJECTS SO THAT WE COULD COMPLETE THIS PLAN AND PROVIDE A, UM, MORE COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THE FUTURE NEEDS FOR THE, THE PLANT AND WHAT UPGRADES MAY BE NEEDED.
AND, AND ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL OPTIONS FOR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT THAT DID NOT EXIST, UM, IN 2013 WHEN WE DID OUR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT OPT OPTIMIZATION PLAN, WHICH, UM, IDENTIFIED RECHARGE WELLS AS PART OF OUR OPTIMIZED, UH, EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.
SO, UM, WE, WITH THAT, I WILL.
SO WE, WE'VE, WITH THIS PLAN, WE'RE EVALUATING NOT ONLY EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT, BUT UPCOMING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY NEED TO BE DONE AT THE TREATMENT PLANT, AS WELL AS, UM, EVALUATING CAPACITY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GOOD IN TERMS OF GROWTH OUT THERE.
AND, AND IT WILL HELP US DO BETTER BUDGETARY FORECASTING, UM, AND PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL HAND IT OVER TO JESSICA DRESSING FROM COROLLO ENGINEERS, WHO'S GONNA HEAD UP THE PRESENTATION TODAY.
UM, I'M GLAD TO BE HERE TO SUMMARIZE THE RESULTS, UH, OF OUR STUDY.
UM, AND, UH, WITH THAT WE'LL GET STARTED HERE.
SO TODAY, JUST BREAKING DOWN THE VARIOUS TOPICS THAT I WILL BE COVERING TODAY, I'LL GIVE YOU A BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF OUR, OUR PROJECT TEAM HERE.
UH, WE HIGHLIGHT THE PROJECT DRIVERS AND, AND GOALS AND MAJOR TASKS, UH, WORKING THROUGH THE, THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT COROLLA HAD FOR THIS EFFORT AND, AND STUDY.
UH, AND THEN WE'LL WORK THROUGH, UH, REALLY THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.
FIRST, DISCUSSING THE CAPACITY ANALYSIS, LOOKING AT THE PLANT ITSELF THAT YOU HAVE TODAY, AND LOOKING AT THE FUTURE, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? UH, EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES WITH PFAS TREATMENT, AND THEN LOOKING AS, AS ROXANNE SAID, INTO, UH, VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES FOR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT AT YOUR WATER REC FACILITY.
UH, AND THEN BE PREPARED TO, TO SUMMARIZE AND, UH, HAVE OPEN DISCUSSION WITH THAT, JUST A BRIEF INTRODUCTION ABOUT OURSELVES.
AGAIN, I'M, I'M JESSICA DRESEN WITH COROLLO ENGINEERS.
I'VE BEEN WORKING FOR NEARLY 25 YEARS IN WATER WASTEWATER TREATMENT, ALL HERE, UH, IN ARIZONA, UH, AND SERVED AS THE PRINCIPAL FOR, UH, THIS PROJECT.
UM, I HAVE PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED OTHER UPGRADE PROJECTS AT THE FACILITY AND, AND VERY FAMILIAR WITH YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
UH, TODAY WE HAVE, UH, KARA FEA, UH, WHO, UM, SERVED AS OUR PROJECT MANAGER AND LEAH LA FLANAGAN, WHO SERVED AS OUR LEAD, UH, PROJECT AND, UH, PROCESS ENGINEER.
UH, AND WE'RE FOLLOWED BY A, A MULTI-DISCIPLINE SUPPORTIVE TEAM THAT HAVE HELPED US TO PREPARE THE RESULTS FOR TODAY.
[00:05:01]
PROJECT DRIVERS, WHICH, WHICH REALLY ENDS UP BEING, YOU KNOW, THE SCOPE OF OUR PROJECT.FIRST, AS I MENTIONED, UH, WAS TO COMPLETE A FULL CAPACITY EVALUATION, EXPLORING THE, THE TREATMENT PLANT AND UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S PERFORMING BASED ON, UH, THE FLOWS THAT ARE COMING OR IN ANTICIPATED TO COME IN THE FUTURE AT BUILD OUT, AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE, OR IS WHAT YOU HAVE TODAY SUFFICE.
UH, THEN LOOKING INTO ALTERNATIVES FOR, UH, PFAS TREATMENT APPLAUD YOU FOR LOOKING OUT AHEAD OF, OF THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED TO COME AND LOOKING AT WHAT THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME SCENARIOS OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE FOR YOUR FACILITY AND YOUR SYSTEM.
AND THEN EXPLORE THOSE ALTERNATIVES, AS I MENTIONED, FOR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT, UH, BETWEEN LOOKING AT RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY OPTIONS, UH, AS WELL AS ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS LOOKING AT IT FROM A SCOPE OF A SCOPE OF WORK FOR OUR PROJECT AT HAND, BETWEEN, UH, THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLABORATE SITE VISITS ON REPORTING RESULTS, UH, REVIEWING THE DATA AND THE REGULATIONS ALONG WITH THE THREE, BREAKING THOSE THREE MAJOR DRIVERS AND, AND EFFORTS INTO TASKS.
AND THEN ULTIMATELY, UH, WE'RE WORKING HERE NOW TO DEVELOP A DRAFT FACILITY PLAN.
SO EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY AND WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THE FACILITY PLAN, ULTIMATELY WILL BE IN A, IN A DOCUMENT THAT YOU CAN HAVE AND FOR, FOR THE FUTURE.
SO FIRST, WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR WATER RECLAMATION PLANT AND, AND THE CAPACITY EVALUATION.
AND WE LOOK AT THOSE FACILITIES IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
UH, YOU CAN IMAGINE WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A FLOW STANDPOINT.
WASTEWATER NEVER STOPS, AND IT'S, IT'S VARIABLE DEPENDING ON THE TIME OF DAY AS WELL AS THE TIME OF YEAR, DEPENDING ON, UM, WHO'S IN TOWN OR, OR WHAT, WHAT THE SITUATION MIGHT BE SEASONALLY.
AND SO WE, WE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND UNDERSTAND YOU'VE GOT, AND WE LOOK AT IT FROM AN AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, MAX MONTHS AND, AND PEAKING, YOU KNOW, REALLY JUST, YOU'VE GOTTA BE READY FOR, FOR ANYTHING THERE.
AND, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF SCIENCE AND, AND DATA BEHIND WHAT, WHAT WE'LL SHARE HERE TODAY WITH CONFIDENCE.
UH, THEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE CONCENTRATIONS AS WE'RE ALL AWARE.
THERE'S A LOT OF A LOT OF THINGS IN YOUR WASTEWATER
UM, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THINGS AREN'T FLOODING, UH, THAT YOU'RE PUMPING.
AND, AND ALL OF THE, THE HYDRAULICS THAT ARE BEHIND THAT ARE, ARE SUFFICE AS WELL.
AND THROUGH THAT, UH, WE'RE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AND IDENTIFY IF THERE ARE ANY BOTTLENECKS AND, AND WHAT MIGHT NEED TO BE REMEDIED TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE, UH, THINGS FOR, FOR ULTIMATE BUILD OUT OF, OF THE CITY.
AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS HERE TO SAY THAT, UH, WHEN WE LOOK AT FIRST AT THE PEAKING FACTOR.
SO WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF FLUCTUATION COULD WE SEE THROUGHOUT THE DAY? WE LOOK AT TREATMENT PLANTS FROM AN AVERAGE DAILY FLOW.
UH, YOU'RE SEEING GENERALLY HERE AROUND 1.16 OR SO MILLION GALLONS PER DAY.
SO THAT'S MILLION GALLONS PER DAY.
UH, WE LOOK AT THEORETICALLY WHAT COULD BE THE MAXIMUM MONTH OF THE YEAR.
AND SO THAT'S A SUSTAINED, ELEVATED, UH, YOU KNOW, AMOUNT OF FLOW GOING THROUGH AS WELL AS PEAK DAYS, PEAK HOURS, WHETHER IT'S YOU'RE HAVING A STORM OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TREATMENT PLANS.
THANKSGIVING
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST WANNA BE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT, UM, AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S LOOKING AT THE TOP HERE.
SO IF WE LOOK AT, UM, THE UP WE HAVE EVERY TIME THAT THERE'S A PROJECT THAT THE ENGINEERING TEAM IS EVALUATING, IS EVALUATING THE, UM, THESE, THESE FLOWS HERE.
AND SO THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT THROUGH PREVIOUS EXPANSION EFFORTS, CAPACITY STUDIES, AND THEN WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF DATA.
AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THAT FROM A PEAKING STANDPOINT, THINGS WERE RELATIVELY THE SAME.
YOU SEE A COUPLE OF UPS AND DOWNS BETWEEN LOWER AVERAGING VERSUS, UM, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN PEAK DAYS WERE CALCULATED, BUT REALLY AT THAT PEAK HOUR, THAT SORT OF, I CALL IT ALMOST LIKE YOUR WORST CASE SCENARIO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GENERALLY THE SAME.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S POSITIVE THERE.
UM, THE, THE STAFF THAT WE WORKED WITH HAD, HAD BEEN NOTICING GENERALLY THOUGH THAT THEY WERE SEEING THE CONCENTRATIONS OF THE CONSTITUENTS IN THE WASTEWATER, WHETHER THAT'S, UH, THE BIOSOLIDS, THE SUSPENDED SOLIDS, THE AMMONIA, AND THE OTHER KEY THINGS THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE WATER AND TREAT FOR.
THEY WERE GENERALLY SEEING INCREASES THERE.
AND SO WE TOOK A LOOK THERE, AND WHAT WE SAW WAS, YES, THERE WERE GENERALLY, UH, INCREASES IN CONCENTRATION OF, OF BOTH, YOU KNOW, SLIGHTLY IN FLOW.
UM, BUT AS WELL AS LOOKING AT IT FROM A BIOSOLIDS SOLID STANDPOINT,
[00:10:01]
THERE'S, THERE'S A VARIETY OF WAYS THAT WE LOOK AT THAT THERE.SO WE WERE SEEING THOSE INCREASES AND, YOU KNOW, OFTEN IT, IT'S HARD TO SAY EXACTLY WHY THAT IS, BUT OFTEN IT IS TRULY BECAUSE OF CONSERVATION AND YOU'RE SEEING FIXTURES AND SUCH IN, IN HOMES AND COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT ARE, THAT ARE REALLY USING, FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, LESS WATER.
CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE? YES.
THE UPPER SECTION THERE, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO READ LIKE A PEAK HOUR? YOU'RE SHOWING 2.3 ACROSS THE BOARD.
IF 2017, IS THAT WHEN IT SAYS CAPACITY, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER? WHAT ARE WHAT, WHAT IS OUR CAPACITY TODAY? IS IT SOMETHING GREATER THAN WHAT IT WAS IN 2017? UM, IT'S NOT, IT, IT'S NOT GREATER.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE TITLE OF THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN 20, IN 2017.
AND SO WHAT WE SAW WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE DATA AND, AND THE FLOW THAT YOU WERE EXPERIENCING WAS THAT WE DID A PROJECT TO, UM, SOME 2017 UPGRADES.
IT, THE TITLE OF THE PROJECT DATED BACK TO 2011
AND THERE WAS, UM, A CAPACITY ANALYSIS DONE WITH THAT AS WELL.
SO, SO IS THERE, THAT'S WHAT THAT REFERS TO.
SO IS THERE AN ACTUAL PEAK HOUR CAPACITY OF OUR SYSTEM CURRENTLY? AND HOW DOES 2.3 COMPARED TO THAT? RIGHT.
SO WITH, WITH THIS LATEST, LATEST DATA SET, WE LOOKED AT THAT ON TOP OF THE PREVIOUS DATA.
AND WHAT WE SAW FOR YOUR TREATMENT PLANT IS THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO HANDLE A, YOU KNOW, A PEAK DAY OF 1.58 AND 2.3.
SO FOR, FOR THIS WORLD THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, DO YOU NOT HAVE A, HEY, OUR PEAK HOUR CAPACITY IS 3.0, THEREFORE AT 2.3 WE'RE GOOD TO GO? OR IS IT JUST LITERALLY, WELL, IT'S NOT BACKING UP, SO I GUESS IT'S OKAY.
I MEAN, IS THAT THE EXTENT OF HOW WE MEASURE CAPACITY? WE, WE DID LOOK AT BUILD, WE DID LOOK AT BUILD OUT, AND WE SEE THAT AT BUILD OUT YOU'RE ANTICIPATING AROUND 1.6 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY AVERAGE.
AND YOUR FACILITY RIGHT NOW HAS THE CAPACITY TO, TO HANDLE THAT.
AND THAT'S GOING TO BE BASICALLY COUNSELOR FULTZ IN SOME SUBSEQUENT SLIDES.
THEY'LL GO OVER EACH TREATMENT PROCESS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE CAPACITY'S ADEQUATE FOR, FOR NOW AND FOR FUTURE AIM SPEEDED BUILD OUTFLOWS.
SO AS I, AS I MENTIONED, WE LOOK AT IT FROM A, A TREATMENT STANDPOINT, WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY THAT'S REMOVAL OF THE CONCENTRATIONS OF THESE CONSTITUENTS.
UM, AND THEN WE LOOK AT IT ALSO FROM A FLOW AND HYDRAULIC STANDPOINT.
SO TAKING A LOOK AT THE TREATMENT PLANT, WE REALLY TAKE A LOOK PROCESS BY PROCESS.
UH, WE'VE GOT EACH OF THOSE LISTED HERE AND WON'T GO THROUGH EACH.
BUT REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS, AS I MENTIONED, WITH, WITH WASTEWATER COMING 24 7, UH, WITH EACH OF THESE, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE, UM, HANDLE THE TREATMENT PROCESS, HAVING ONE OF THOSE MAJOR UNITS DOWN FOR MAINTENANCE OR, OR TROUBLESHOOTING OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
SO MANY OF THESE SHOW A ONE PLUS ONE, ONE PLUS ZERO, UM, YOU KNOW, ANTICIPATING MULTIPLE, YOU KNOW, USING MULTIPLE UNITS THERE.
AND SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE SHOWING THIS FIRM CAPACITY, SO YOUR BAR SCREENS THERE CAN, WHICH IS ONE OF THOSE, UM, TREATMENT PROCESSES UP FRONT TO REMOVE VERY, YOU KNOW, LARGER PARTICLES AND, AND INORGANICS IN YOUR WASTEWATER.
THAT PIECE OF EQUIPMENT CAN HANDLE AN UPWARDS OF 6.9 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY.
SO VERY MUCH IN EXCESS OF THAT SAY, UM, PEAK ON A 1.6 MILLION GALLON PLANT.
SO WE LOOKED PROCESS BY PROCESS, UM, EACH OF THESE RUN RUN THROUGH THE SYSTEM, UM, BETWEEN SCREENINGS, UH, YOUR AERATION BASINS THAT REMOVE A LOT OF THOSE THAT BIOLOGICAL MATTER, YOUR CLARIFIERS, YOUR PUMPS, UH, YOUR FILTRATION UNITS, AND ULTIMATELY YOUR DISINFECTION.
AND WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE IS THAT EACH OF THESE UNITS HAS A FIRM CAPACITY THAT CAN PROVIDE THAT TREATMENT.
AGAIN, 24 7, ASSUMING ONE UNIT IS OUT OF, OUT OF SERVICE IN MOST CASES.
UM, THAT, THAT THE PROCESS IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOUR ANTICIPATED BUILD OUT OF THE FACILITY.
WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF YOUR NO REDUNDANCY NOTE THERE ON THE UV DISINFECTION NEW? SO WHAT WE'RE SHOWING THERE IS THAT BOTH UNITS ARE, WILL BE RUNNING AND WHAT YOU HAVE IN THERE ARE REDUNDANT BULBS.
SO, SO WHAT WE SAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THERE BEING A CHALLENGE WITH THE CONCRETE THERE IS, IS IS LITTLE TO NONE.
AND SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT YOU CAN HAVE AERATION BASINS AND DISINFECTION WITH THAT ZERO NUMBER.
UM, YOU HAVE REDUNDANT OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY EQUIPMENT AROUND THAT BETWEEN BLOWERS
[00:15:01]
AND BULBS.AGAIN, THIS IS JUST ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT.
THIS IS MORE ON THE SOLIDS END AS WELL AS THE EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT.
AND REALLY THERE WERE ALSO SHOWING THAT, UM, IN THIS CASE, UH, THAT THE SOLIDS FOR THE COUPLE OF, YOU KNOW, NOT TO GET TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS HERE, BUT THE FIRST COUPLE OF THERE ASSUME A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF OPERATION FOR YOUR SOLIDS.
YOUR SOLIDS ARE DEWATERED ONLY FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF, OF DAYS OF WEEK.
AND WITHIN THAT REASONABLE NUMBER OF DAYS YOU HAVE HAVE THAT CAPACITY.
UM, AND THEN ON THE EFFLUENT END OF THE FACILITY SHOWING HERE THAT YOU HAVE, HAVE THE CAPACITY, UM, UH, TO HAVE THE WATER, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY EVACUATE THE FACILITY.
SO LOOKING AT THINGS AS WELL, LIKE I SAID, FROM A HYDRAULIC STANDPOINT, SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HYDRAULICS, THAT'S THE GRAVITY FLOW THROUGH THE FACILITY, UM, AS WELL AS THE PUMPING THAT MAY HAVE TO HAPPEN TO CONVEY THE WATER THROUGH THE PROCESSES.
UH, AND SO WE LOOKED AT THIS FACILITY BOTH WITH, UH, THE FACILITIES IN THE PROCESS OF, OF UPGRADING, REPLACING THEIR, THEIR UV DISINFECTION SYSTEM.
AND SO WE LOOKED AT THE HYDRAULICS BOTH WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM AS WELL AS THE PLANNED SYSTEM THAT'S GOING INTO CONSTRUCTION.
AND WHAT WE SAW WAS THAT THE FACILITY, UH, DOES HAVE THE CAP CAPABILITY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME PIPING UPSTREAM OF THE UV DISINFECTION SYSTEM.
UH, ONCE THAT IS INCREASED, THEN YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO OTHERWISE ACROSS THE FACILITY MEET, UH, THE NEEDED CAPACITY AT AT WHAT YOU'VE CURRENTLY ARE ANTICIPATING TO BE BILLED OUT.
I DUNNO IF YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING THERE.
SO FOR THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE A CONTRACT RIGHT NOW FOR OUR UV UPGRADES.
WE'VE DONE A DESIGN CHANGE ON THAT.
UM, IT SHOULD BE GOING TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR QUOTES ANY DAY NOW, UM, TO UPSIZE THAT PIPE NOW.
AND THEN WE ARE ALSO EXPANDING, UM, THE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE, THE VESSEL THAT HOLDS ALL THE BULBS, UM, ONE UNIT.
SO WE COULD ADD ANOTHER RACK OF BULBS IF WE WANTED THAT REDUNDANCY IN THE FUTURE.
UM, WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO THAT NOW AS A CHANGE ORDER TO THAT CONTRACT AS OPPOSED TO WAITING IN THE FUTURE WHEN IT WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO CONSTRUCT.
SO THAT'LL BE COMING TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL IN THE NEXT FOUR TO SIX WEEKS, I ANTICIPATE.
AND ROXANNE, SO YOUR COMMENT THERE, EXCUSE ME, WAS IN REFERENCE TO THE PLAN BUILD OUT, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THERE? YES.
OTHER, AT OTHER TIMES IN THIS REPORT WE TALK ABOUT THE PLAN BUILD OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY AND SORT OF THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED FLOWS ON YOUR, THOSE KIND OF GO HAND IN HAND.
SO THE, THE PLAN TO BUILD OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY CORRELATES TO THE PLANNED BUILD OUT OF OUR FLOWS, RIGHT? SURE.
UM, SO THAT CONCLUDES THE PORTION OF THE CAPACITY EVALUATION.
I'M GONNA MOVE ON INTO, UH, PFAS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES THAT WE EXPLORED.
SO WE'LL JUST GIVE A BIT BIT OF BACKGROUND.
I KNOW, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF NEWS AND PRESS ABOUT PFAS.
UM, JUST TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CHEMISTRY HERE.
UH, P WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PFAS, IT'S A LARGE FAMILY OF COMPOUNDS OF PER AND POLYFLOR ALKALI SYSTEMS. VERY LONG CARBON CHAINS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THINK OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOT THE STRENGTH OF, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT ANY OF NUMBER OF YOUR PLASTICS AND SUCH, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT, WHAT THE RESULT IS WHEN YOU HAVE THOSE TYPES OF CHEMICALS.
AND, UH, UNFORTUNATELY VERY UBIQUITOUS DUE TO WIDESPREAD USE ACROSS MANY CONSUMER AND, AND OTHER TYPES OF PRODUCTS OUT THERE.
AND LIKE I SAID, THEIR, THEIR RESISTANCE TO DEGRADATION, UH, BUT TYPICALLY WE'RE SEEING THEM IN VERY, VERY LOW CONCENTRATIONS.
I'M GONNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT NANOGRAMS PER LITER, AND TO GIVE YOU SOME FRAME OF REFERENCE, A NANOGRAM PER LITER, IF I GET THIS RIGHT, IS ONE DROP OF THE EQUIVALENT OF ONE DROP OF WATER IN 20 OLYMPIC SIZED SWIMMING POOLS.
AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EX EXTREMELY LOW CONCENTRATIONS IN GENERAL WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NANOGRAMS PER LITER.
AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR NANOGRAMS PER LITER, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT THERE, UH, THROUGH SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND SUCH THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT FOCUSED ON, ON THIS PROJECT.
UM, BUT JUST GENERALLY FINDING HIGHLY TOXIC WITH SOME OF THE COMPOUNDS, AS I'M SURE MANY OF YOU HAVE READ OUT, UH, IN THE MEDIA AND OTHER SOURCES.
UH, AND, AND WITH THAT IT BECOMES, UH, PERSISTENT AND, AND CHALLENGING TO GENERALLY TREAT WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL PROCESSES THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE, UH, AT YOUR SITE.
SO THIS, THIS AREA OF, OF TREATMENT AND REGULATION IS CONTINUALLY EVOLVING.
[00:20:01]
THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN ANTICIPATING AND WHAT CAME OUT THIS PAST FALL WERE NATIONAL PRELIMINARY DRINKING WATER RULES.AND SO YOU SEE HERE FOR A NUMBER OF, AGAIN, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF VARIETIES OF OF PFAS OUT THERE, BUT, BUT FOR THE CONSTITUENTS THAT YOU SEE HERE, UH, THERE WERE FINAL MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS OR MCLS THAT WERE SET TALKING ABOUT HERE, RANGING FROM, UM, UM, AS LITTLE AS FOUR TO 10 NANOGRAMS PER LITER.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT IN A CONCENTRATION.
UH, AND ANTICIPATING THE REGULATIONS RIGHT NOW ARE SAYING THAT, THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATMENT AND THESE MCLS WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE MET BY, I BELIEVE 2029 IS THE CURRENT RULING RIGHT NOW IN DRINKING WATER.
UH, YOU ARE OUT, WE'RE OUT AHEAD OF THINGS HERE, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT WITH WASTEWATER HERE IN THE NEXT SLIDES.
IS THE EXPECTATION THAT PFAS CHEMICALS WILL CONTINUE TO BE PRESENT IN THE WASTE STREAM? LIKE, IS THIS A, IT'S NEVER GOING AWAY.
IT'S GETTING WORSE, GONNA GET BETTER.
DO YOU, WHAT'S YOUR CRYSTAL BALL TELL YOU ABOUT THAT? UH, THERE'S A VARIETY OF REASONS AND PRODUCTS AND SUCH FOR WHY PFAS EXISTS.
UM, YOU KNOW, BUT, YOU KNOW, PFAS IS IN THE AQUIFER.
AND SO I, IT'S GONNA BE DIFFICULT TO TREAT IT IN ALL OF THE PLACES WHERE IT'S AT.
SO, UM, IT IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SAY.
I THINK THERE'S MANY THINGS WE CAN DO BETWEEN IMPLEMENTING TREATMENT AND REGULATION AS WELL AS THE SHIFT IN, IN, IN PRODUCTS AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND OKAY.
BUT LIKE SOME YEARS BACK THERE, WHAT WAS IT THAT BBPA WAS LIKE, OH, CAN'T HAVE THAT IN MY BABY BOTTLES, RIGHT? MM-HMM
BUT PFAS NOT LIKELY TO GO AWAY THE SAME WAY BPA DID.
I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE A WHILE.
I THINK WE'RE STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE IT, WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
I THINK YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO COME TO THE MARKET PHONE.
SO, SO OVER TIME, PFAS IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND IN WATER AND, AND, AND IN PEOPLE HAS BEEN DECREASING BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN PLACES WHERE, UM, WHERE PFAS HAS BEEN REGULATED AND IT'S NO LONGER USED, UH, BUT IT'S ALSO STILL VERY COMMONLY USED IN A LOT OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS.
AND, UM, AND IT'S ALSO IN OUR HOMES AND BUSINESSES BECAUSE IT'S BEEN USED FOR SO MANY YEARS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHILE LEVELS ARE GOING DOWN, THEY'RE NOT DISAPPEARING.
AND AS JESSICA MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHAT'S CALLED, UH, YOU KNOW, THE MEDIA LIKES TO USE THE TERM FOREVER CHEMICALS BECAUSE THEY DON'T BREAK DOWN READILY.
SO A LOT OF CHEMICALS IN THE ENVIRONMENT, YOU KNOW, BACTERIA BREAK THEM DOWN AND THAT KIND OF THING, THAT IS NOT TRUE OF PFAS TYPES OF COMPOUNDS.
UM, SO THEY'RE VERY, UH, STABLE AND HARD TO GET RID OF.
SO IS THERE LIKELY TO BE ANY DISAGREEMENTS, ANY DIRECTIONAL CHANGE TO THE EPA UNDER AN INCOMING NEW PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION WHERE THIS COULD BE A TOPIC OF DEBATE SIMILAR TO SAY, UH, THE REALITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE? THAT IS A HUGE QUESTION THAT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ON THEIR MINDS.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL.
UM, SO WE CAN ONLY SUR SURMISE THAT LIKELY THERE WILL BE PEOPLE THAT WILL, YOU KNOW, ASK THE ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW THIS.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN FROM THAT.
I I HAVE SEEN OTHER PENDING REGULATION THAT HAS BEEN HALTED AND, AND THEN SPED BACK UP WITH, WITH CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATION.
UM, SO WE'LL SEE IN THE PAST, IN, IN THE PAST, YES, I'VE, I'VE SEEN IT MORE ON OTHER AFFLUENT LIMITATIONS WITH, SAY, POWER PLANTS AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON HERE, BUT, BUT HAVE, HAVE SEEN EBBS AND FLOWS WITH, WITH, UH, WITH POLITICS THERE.
UH, AND SO THAT WAS A TALK ON, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE SEEING THE MCLS COME OUT FOR, FOR DRINKING WATER, UH, WASTEWATER, AGAIN, APPLAUD, APPLAUD YOU IN LOOKING OUT AHEAD OF REGULATIONS HERE WHEN IT COMES TO WASTEWATER, UH, WITH THAT GAP IN THAT FEDERAL REGULATION.
FROM A WASTEWATER PERSPECTIVE, UH, WE ARE SEEING, UM, WE ARE SEEING SOME STATES TAKE, UH, SOME VARIOUS APPROACHES HERE.
AND YOU'RE SEEING 10 OF THOSE HERE.
AND, AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN SOMETHING YET IS BECAUSE EACH STATE HANDLES WASTEWATER AND, AND, AND WATER A LITTLE BIT SEPARATELY.
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ON THE NEXT SLIDE HERE OF, OF SORT OF THAT WHY FOR ARIZONA AND WHY MAYBE THAT THAT HASN'T BEEN SETTLED YET.
BUT YOU CAN SEE A VARIETY OF THESE, THESE DARKER GREEN AREAS OR WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A STANDARD SET, SAY FOR MICHIGAN,
[00:25:01]
COLORADO, WISCONSIN, AND OTHER STATES, LIKE, I'M DOING SOME OF THIS WORK HERE IN CALIFORNIA.THERE'S CERTAIN MONITORING RIGHT NOW THAT'S REQUIRED, SAY IF YOU'RE AN AIRPORT AND OTHER THINGS.
SO, UM, AND THEN THESE STATES THAT DON'T HAVE ANY COLOR HERE HAVE, HAVE ALSO A VARIETY OF THINGS GOING ON AND THAT THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT.
BUT SPEAKING HERE TO ARIZONA, WHAT COULD THAT MEAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT? AND SO WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT IT FROM A LIQUID STANDPOINT AS WELL AS A SOLIDS.
SO, UM, SO FIRST LOOKING AT IT FROM, FROM AN EFFLUENT FROM YOUR, THE EFFLUENT, UM, EXITING YOUR TREATMENT PLANT, UM, THE, THE PERMIT THAT YOU, ONE OF THE PERMITS THAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR TREATMENT PLANT IS AN AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT.
AND THE WAY THAT THE PERMITTING WORKS HERE IN ARIZONA, IT IS TIED TO THAT AQUIFER WATER QUALITY, WHICH IS WHEREBY AND LARGE, YOU KNOW, QUITE A BIT OF THE, YOUR DRINKING WATER, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE STATE COMES FROM.
AND SO RECOGNIZING THAT THAT WASTEWATER EFFLUENT CAN DIRECTLY AFFECT ULTIMATELY THE DRINKING WATER, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE RECOGNIZING THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT.
YOU CAN'T TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE WASTEWATER.
AND WHEN WE SAY AQUIFER, THAT'S EVERYTHING FROM IF YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, APPLYING IT VIA IRRIGATION OR RECHARGE WELLS OR, YOU KNOW, DISCHARGING TO A, A BODY OF WATER, WE'RE RECOGNIZING AT SOME POINT THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO GET BACK INTO THAT AQUIFER.
AND SO WHERE, UH, THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY A DEQ IS AT IS THAT THEY ARE GETTING TO THE BEGINNINGS HERE OF THAT RULEMAKING PROCESS.
UH, AND SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY, WE HAVE HAVE MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THOSE REGULATIONS ON THAT DRINKING WATER AND THAT AQUIFER AND SUCH, AND THAT, THAT TREATMENT, UH, WOULD BE, WOULD BE SIMILAR REGULATION TO WHAT WOULD BE PUT ON WASTEWATER.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE, WE, WERE TRYING NOT TO REFER TO CRYSTAL BALL, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE BEST THAT, THAT WE CAN DO WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE RISKS OF HOW THAT WATER, HOW THAT WASTEWATER WOULD PLAY INTO THAT, THAT THAT AQUIFER AND THAT DRINKING WATER SOURCE.
UH, SO, BUT THAT, THAT, THAT RULEMAKING PROCESS IS, IS BEGINNING HERE.
UH, BUT WHAT WE DO ANTICIPATE IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT WE SEE HAPPENING IS THAT, THAT A DEQ WILL WANT TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING SORT OF UNDER THEIR CONTROL OF, OF KNOWING WHAT IS OUT THERE.
SO WE DO ANTICIPATE THERE BEING AN INITIAL PHASE OF LIKELY CERTAIN BASELINE MONITORING.
SO BEFORE THEY JUMP RIGHT TO REGULATION THERE IN PARALLEL, THEY, THEY WILL LIKELY, UM, REQUIRE A CERTAIN MONITORING ACROSS WASTEWATER PLANTS IN THE STATE JUST TO, JUST TO SEE WHERE THEY'RE AT AND WHAT IS EVEN THE CAPABILITY, JUST TO, TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT OF, YOU KNOW, THE FINANCIAL AND, AND, AND OTHER, YOU KNOW, TYPES OF IMPACTS, LIKE I MENTIONED.
UM, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE EFFLUENT FROM OR, OR THE CONSTITUENTS WITHIN A WASTEWATER PLANT, WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE, SO THE BIOSOLIDS THAT WE REMOVE FROM THE PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THE CLARIFICATION PROCESS, UM, AND, AND FILTER BACK WASH AND, AND THE SCREENINGS AND SUCH.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THOSE BIOSOLIDS THAT YOU REMOVE FROM YOUR, YOUR CLARIFIERS THAT YOU HAVE OUT THERE, UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF PRESS YESTERDAY, UH, THERE WAS A DRAFT RISK ASSESSMENT RELEASED.
UH, SO, UH, THE EPA AND THE, THE GOVERNMENT ARE WORKING QUICKLY, SWIFTLY TO TRY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RISKS ARE FOR LAND APPLYING THESE BIOSOLIDS.
SO, UM, A LOT OF THE REGULATIONS ARE CHANGING, BUT TRADITIONALLY YOU, YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THESE SOLIDS, YOU USED TO BE ABLE TO, TO BY AND LARGE PUT THEM, APPLY THEM TO CROPS.
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A LOT MORE DIFFICULT THESE DAYS.
AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT EVEN LIMITING WHICH LANDFILLS THESE, THIS, UH, THIS BIOSOLID WASTE CAN GO TO.
AND SO THE NEXT SLIDE IS EVEN CRAZIER AS FAR AS ALL OVER THE MAP THAT I'LL SHOW YOU THE VISUAL, BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF STATES THAT ARE ALREADY IMPLEMENTING THEIR OWN STANDARDS AS FAR AS RE FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON LAND APPLICATION.
UM, AND, AND IF THIS WASTE IS CATEGORIZED AS HAZARDOUS, WHAT TYPES OF LANDFILLS, UH, WHERE COULD THIS GO TO? SO ARE YOU HAVING TO POSSIBLY TRUCK THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS WASTE OUTTA STATE? UH, LIKEWISE, UH, ONCE TREATMENT PROCESSES ARE IMPLEMENTED, UH, MANY OF THOSE AS ALL SHOW IN A COUPLE SLIDES ARE A MEDIA THAT EITHER HAVE TO BE DISCHARGED ONCE THEY'RE SPENT, UM, OR RESIDUALS FROM THAT.
UM, AND, AND ALSO ANTICIPATING, UH, REGULATION ON, ON THAT TYPE OF WASTE AS WELL.
SO REGULATION, LIKE THE MAP YOU JUST HAD UP THERE, LIKE WHO DRIVES THAT REGULATION? IS, IS THAT THE BUREAUCRACY IN THE FORM OF AN EDEQ? IS IT A STATE LEGISLATURE AND OR COMBINATION OF A GOVERNOR? LIKE WHAT, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE REAL DRIVER THERE? SO WE CAN KIND OF GET A SENSE OF WHAT WE MIGHT EXPECT OUT OF OUR
[00:30:01]
LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR HERE? UH, I KNOW IN THE CASE OF ARIZONA, IT WOULD BE THROUGH A DEQ.UM, I BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD BE THEIR INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DEPARTMENTS, BUT I, I KNOW THAT THEY ALL WORK HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR, THEIR STATE GOVERNMENT.
AND SO I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT TECHNICAL ANSWER OF HOW THAT THAT SETS UP, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN SIMILAR A DQ.
ON THE PRIOR PAGE, YOU TALK ABOUT A SUBTITLE, C HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL.
IT'S SUCH A THING EXISTS AROUND HERE.
I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE THE, THE CLOSEST, WE USED TO HAVE A MAP, THE CLOSEST ONE IS AT LOCATION IN NEVADA.
RIGHT? UM, AND I'VE SEEN ON SOME OTHER PROJECTS ON THE WEST COAST WHERE THE RESIDUALS FROM THE, THE RO PROCESS HAVING TO GO ALL THE WAY TO KENTUCKY.
AND SO YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A CHALLENGE.
UM, AND THAT'S, I THINK WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ASSESS AS PART OF THIS, THIS RISK ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE REGULATIONS ARE SET THAT THEY UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF, OF SETTING THOSE FORTH FOR, FOR UTILITIES.
WHAT DID THEY, THEY TRUCK THEM THERE, HOW DID THEY GET THEM THERE? YEAH, IT'S, IT'S RIGHT NOW BY, BY TRUCK.
AND SO THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF, WHAT, WHAT'S INTERESTING THEN IS THERE'S A LOT OF, WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF INNOVATION ON THERE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, LOOKING AT WAYS TO DESTRUCT THE PFAS OR LOOKING AT OTHER WAYS TO, TO TRANSFORM SOME OF THAT WAYS SO THAT YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO, TO TRUCK IT OR THAT THAT AMOUNT OF WASTE REDUCES SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANTLY.
SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE THE, THAT TYPE OF INNOVATION THAT'S OUT THERE TO COUNTERACT THIS KIND OF CHALLENGE.
SO LIKE I SAID, THIS ONE'S EVEN MORE ALL OVER THE MAP AS FAR AS WHAT GROUPS OR STATES ARE DOING AS FAR AS EVERYTHING FROM VOLUNTARY TESTING ALL THE WAY TO IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN BANS WHEN IT COMES TO LAND APPLICATIONS AND, AND PROPOSED, UM, OTHER SIMILAR BANS RELATED TO BIOS, SOLIDS LAND APPLICATION.
AND SO COMING BACK AND LOOKING AT HERE LOCALLY, UM, UM, STAFF HAVE BEGUN MONITORING PFAS AT THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, BOTH EFFLUENT AND EFFLUENT.
UH, AND THERE WE ARE HIGHLIGHTING THERE WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EXCEEDANCES, AGAIN, WHEN WE SAY EXCEEDANCE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPARING THAT TO CURRENT MCLS MAXIMUM CONTAINMENT CONTAMINANT LEVELS, UH, ON THE DRINKING WATERFRONT, AS THERE IS NOT A CURRENT REGULATION SET.
AND, AND I GUESS ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, IF, IF YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING OR SEEING THAT THIS LATER, PFAS CAN CHANGE FORM INSIDE THE TREATMENT PROCESS.
SO IT IS, IT IS A COMMON THING IF YOU ARE SEEING THE, THE, THE EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ACTUALLY INCREASE FROM THE ILU, SO THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT'S COMMONLY SEEN.
AND THESE, THOSE NUMBERS, ARE THEY MEASURED AT THE END OF THE TREATMENT PLANT? YES.
NOT, NOT, THIS ISN'T WELL OR MONITOR WELLS DOWNSTREAM OF THE RIGHT.
IT'S, IT'S RIGHT AFTER UV DISINFECTION.
UM, AND THEN THE INFLUENCE IS WHAT'S COMING IN RAW FROM, FROM TOWN IS, THANK YOU.
SO WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT AS, AS WE MENTIONED, AND AS KARA HIGHLIGHTED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CHALLENGE IS THAT PFAS IS A VERY STABLE CHEMISTRY.
AND SO TREATMENT OPTIONS ARE, ARE GENERALLY LIMITED THOUGH AS I, AS I MENTIONED, UH, THE INDUSTRY IS CONTINUING TO INNOVATE AND, AND EVOLVE.
BUT WHAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE EPA HAS APPROVED A BAT BEING BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY, UH, FOR ON THE DRINKING WATER SIDE OF ION EXCHANGE, WHICH IS IX, THEY'RE GRANULATED ACTIVATED CARBON.
SO THOSE ARE, UH, FORMS OF, OF PARTICULAR MEDIA THAT THAT CAN TREAT, UH, PFAS, UH, AS WELL AS RO AND NF, WHICH ARE, ARE FORMS OF MEMBRANES.
UH, BUT WHAT WE ARE SEEING STILL IS THAT ON THE MEMBRANE FRONT IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A MEMBRANE SYSTEM, THE, THE DISCHARGE OR THE EFFLUENT FROM THAT PROCESS IS THE CLEANER WATER, BUT ALSO A CONCENTRATION OF, OF THE WASTE.
AND SO WITH ANY, UM, REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM, AND YOU MAY BE EVEN FAMILIAR WITH YOUR OWN PROCESSES, MAYBE AT YOUR HOUSE AND SUCH, YOU DO GET A BRINE STREAM THAT IS, IN THAT CASE, TYPICALLY SENT TO A, A WASTEWATER FACILITY OR PROCESS.
AND SO IN THIS CASE, YOU WOULD HAVE A BRINE THAT CAN BE QUITE COST PROHIBITIVE STILL, UH, TO TREAT.
UM, AND SO THE FOCUS FOR THIS PROJECT WAS TO LOOK AT ION EXCHANGE AND GRANULAR ACTIVATED
[00:35:01]
CARBON.IF I COULD ASK ON, ON THIS CHART, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A MAP OF THE CHEMICAL PROCESSES OF TREATMENT OR MAYBE THE PHYSICS OR MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF COMBINATION OF BOTH.
DO YOU DUST OFF YOUR CRYSTAL BALLS? IS THERE ANOTHER PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY THAT'S GONNA POP UP HERE THAT'S NOT ON THIS MAP? OR WHAT'S THE LIKELIHOOD OF ONE OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES MOVING IN THE HIGH EFFICIENCY, LOWER COST REALM? UM, I, I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO SEE MEMBRANE COSTS COME DOWN.
UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WE'RE COMING UP WITH BETTER WAYS TO DISPOSE AND TREAT THE BRINE.
UH, THAT, THAT IS A VERY INTENSIVE THERMAL PROCESS.
UM, AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, THERE, THERE'S SOME EVOLVING PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY, THAT ARE NOT ON HERE, THAT ARE, THAT ARE WORKING TO DESTRUCT AND FURTHER DOWN THAT, THAT WASTE CONCENTRATION.
AND SO THE, THE MAGIC IN THIS EFFORT IS TRYING TO FIND THAT SWEET SPOT OF REGULATION BEING SETTLED AND THE TECHNOLOGIES EVOLVING TO A FAIR COST POINT.
AND WHEN MIGHT THAT BE IN ARIZONA?
I MEAN, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE, THE POSITIVE PIECE ABOUT ION EXCHANGE AND GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON IS THAT THEY'RE READILY USED PROCESSES THROUGHOUT ARIZONA.
THEY ARE A, UM, A VESSEL OR A TANK THAT, THAT ARE PRODUCED BY A NUMBER OF MANUFACTURERS.
SO IT'S A COMPETITIVE BIDDING ENVIRONMENT.
AND THEN, THEN THE MEDIAS WE'RE CONTINUING TO COME UP WITH MEDIAS THAT WORK BETTER AND THAT ARE MORE AND MORE EFFICIENT.
SO, UM, HOPING THAT WITH ALL OF THAT, THAT'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, CREATE AND MAINTAIN THAT COMPETITION IN THE MARKET THAT HELPS BRING THE COST DOWN.
I'VE, I'VE SEEN THAT WITH SOME OTHER EQUIPMENT ACROSS THE INDUSTRY.
A QUESTION FOR JOHN, WHEN WE WENT ON OUR TOUR, THE PLANT AT RELICS, THAT WAS THE ONE THAT YOU SAID HAD SOME PFAS SHOW UP PREVIOUSLY.
ARE YOU USING ONE OF THESE TO TREAT FOR THAT? WE'RE IN ABOUT THE SAME STAGE OF THE GAME AS YOU ARE HERE WITH OUR, UM, RESEARCH FOR TREATMENT.
I, I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS GRANULAR, GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON.
UM, IF YOU RECALL, WE WENT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT DOWN TO THE, OUR NUMBER NINE.
WELL, THAT IS, UH, HAS A RAPID SAND FILTER.
UM, PRIOR TO THE ARSEN, I ALWAYS REFER BACK TO THE ARSENIC.
'CAUSE BEFORE THAT, UM, GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON WAS A ALL GO-TO FOR MANY THINGS, AND THEY STILL USE IT ACROSS THE INDUSTRY FOR A LOT.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING STARTED ON IN A DIFFERENT PLAYING FIELD WITH PFOS AS FAR AS THAT GOES.
UM, I THINK, UM, BUT NO, WE'RE NOT USING THAT, THAT WELL IS OFF.
WE WE'RE NOT USING THAT WELL, DUE, DUE TO THE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
BUT I, THIS, THIS, THIS, UM, BUDGET YEAR, UM, WE'RE ADDRESSING THAT THE DESIGN AND, UM, HOPEFULLY GONNA BEGIN CONSTRUCTION.
AND I THINK PROBABLY ALONG THOSE LINES.
YOU SET ME UP, DIDN'T YOU? IS THAT A STATEWIDE DESIGN OR ARE YOU DOING DIFFERENT THINGS IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS? UM, THAT I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE, UH, HOW MUCH WATER QUALITY PLAYS INTO THE TREATMENT PROCESS FOR DRINKING WATER.
UM, SO THERE MAY BE OTHER, UH, MEANS THAT WORK BETTER OR THAT DON'T WORK, UH, DEPENDING ON, UM, HARDNESS, SILICA, UM, PH AND THAT AND THAT SORT OF THING.
BUT I'M, I'M NOT REAL VERSED ON THAT.
UM, ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ARIZONA WATER COMPANY, I, I THINK I'VE ONLY HEARD HIM MENTION THE ACTIVATED CARBON, BUT THAT'S ALSO DEPENDS A LOT ON THE GALLONS PER MINUTE THAT A WELL PUTS OUT AND HOW MUCH YOUR TREATMENT STREAM IS.
THE WELL THAT, UM, UM, BRIAN WAS REFERRING TO AT RAINBOW IS A SMALL PRODUCER.
IT ONLY PUMPS ABOUT 160 OR 70 GALLONS A MINUTE, BUT SOME OF OUR WELLS DOWN IN THE OTHER PART, IN THE OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE PUMP UPWARDS TO 1500, TWO THOUSANDS OF GALLONS A MINUTE.
SO THAT MIGHT REQUIRE SOME SORT OF DIFFERENT PROCESS.
I'M, I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN I'M NOT SURE IF EVEN BLENDING IS AN OPTION WITH THIS MONSTER BECAUSE IT, IT'S EVERYWHERE.
IT, IT, THERE, IT, YOU DON'T MAKE LESS OF IT BY SPLITTING IT UP, I DON'T THINK.
AND YOU COULD PROBABLY ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS BETTER.
SO APPLYING THE, UH, GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON AND ION EXCHANGE TECHNOLOGIES
[00:40:01]
TOOK A LOOK AT, UH, THOSE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES.UM, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THE PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC.
SO THE, THE PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEM WOULD BE LOCATED DOWNSTREAM OF YOUR CURRENT FACILITY.
SO THE, THE WATER WOULD RUN THROUGH THE TREATMENT PLANT AS YOU KNOW IT TODAY, UM, AND THEN RUN INTO THE PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEM.
UM, THE, THE LEVELS OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN THE SYSTEM DO, UH, REQUIRE OR, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT, UM, IN ORDER TO HAVE THE GAC AND THE ION EXCHANGE TO BE WORK EFFECTIVELY, UH, REQUIRE A PRETREATMENT PROCESS, AND THAT INCLUDES OZ NATION AND, UH, BIO BIOLOGICAL ACTIVATE, CARBON FILTRATION,
SO, UM, AND THEN, AND THEN FROM THERE, THAT WATER WOULD BE TREATED AND, AND READY FOR YOUR EFFLUENT, UH, MANAGEMENT, HOW IT MAY BE.
AND THE, THE BACKWASH, IT GOES TO THE BASIN AND WE PUMP IT OUT AND TRUCK IT OFF SOMEWHERE AT SOME POINT.
IS THAT, UM, I BELIEVE THAT IS IMPLYING THAT IT GOES BACK TO THE FACILITY THAT IT RECYCLES BACK TO THE HEAD OF YOUR WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY.
SO IT'S, IT'S JUST A BACK WASHING OF, UM, JUST TEND TO GET, UM, JUST THAT BUILDUP ON THAT MEDIA AND SUCH.
UM, BUT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE WASTE STREAM OF THE PROCESS HAS TO BE COLLECTED.
THE CON EVEN THE CONCENTRATED THIS COMPLETELY CLOSED LOOP, YOU NEVER GOT A, LIKE MY RO FILTER, MY BRINE GOES DOWN TO YOU
AND, AND THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THE MEMBRANES IN THIS CASE.
THIS IS JUST A BACK WASHING PROCESS TO KIND OF REFRESH, REFRESH FLUFF UP THE MEDIA AND THAT LIQUID STREAM WOULD THEN JUST GO, GO TO THE HEAD OF THE PLANT.
SO THERE IS EVENTUALLY A PRODUCT FROM THIS PROCESS, WHICH IS THE MEDIA HAS TO BE EITHER DISPOSED OF OR, UM, REGENERATED.
UM, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT PFAS IN, YOU KNOW, REGENERATION PROCESSES AND, UM, ION EXCHANGE MEDIA RIGHT NOW IS NOT DESIGNED TO, FOR PFAS TO BE REGENERATED, WHICH MEANS THAT HAS TO BE DISPOSED OF, AND THAT COULD END UP BEING ONE OF THE WASTE THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN TO A, A HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL.
IF THOSE REGULATIONS WERE TO PUT BE, WERE TO BE PUT IN PLACE A ANY CHANCE THAT THE INJECTION WELLS THEMSELVES REINTRODUCE SOME PFAS, YOU KNOW, OR THEIR BEARINGS OR SLEEVES OR SOMETHING.
AND THE WELL EQUIPMENT THAT COULD ALSO GENERATE PFAS AND PUT IT INTO THE AQUIFER, THAT'S NOT MONITORED.
BUT WE COULD, WE COULD CHECK ON ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT COLUMNS ITSELF AND MATERIALS.
THERE'S, THERE'S P-P-F-A-S IN ALL SORTS OF THINGS.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH PIECES AND BOOBS AND ALL KINDS OF YEAH, WE, I'VE SEEN SOME WORK IN TUCSON ON WELLS THAT THEY'VE INVESTIGATED THAT AND NOT REALLY SEEN THOSE THINGS TO BE AS MUCH OF A CONCERN.
UM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANNA TALK ABOUT THE POINT OF COMPLIANCE WELLS.
I REALIZE WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT DATA ON THERE.
AND THERE IS ONE OF THE WELLS IN THE, THE COMPLIANCE WELLS DATASET DOES HAVE HIGHER PFAS THAN THE EFFLUENT AND SOME OF THE OTHER WELLS.
AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHY THAT IS, ALTHOUGH THERE'S SOME SUPPOSITION THAT THAT COULD BE RELATED TO THE SHOOTING RANGE THAT'S RIGHT THERE NEAR THAT.
WELL, SO, UH, WE'VE, WE'VE PROVIDED SOME PICTURES JUST TO GIVE SOME, SOME BACKGROUND OF WHAT, WHAT THIS EQUIPMENT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
UH, THIS SLIDE PROVIDES THAT OZONE, BAF, THAT PRETREATMENT PROCESS.
UH, THE EXAMPLE HERE IS AT THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THERE'S AN INDUSTRIAL TREATMENT PLANT THERE THAT, UM, THAT, THAT I HELPED, UH, LEAD THE DESIGN FOR THE, THAT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL IN SIZE TO THIS, THIS TREATMENT PLANT.
UH, THESE ARE RIGHT HERE, YOUR OZONE GENERATORS, UH, HERE, THE, THE LARGE CONCRETE TANK THERE IS, UH, THE OZONE CONTACTOR ITSELF.
SO THE OZONE IS APPLIED TREATED, AND THEN THERE IS A, THERE'S ACTUAL DESTRUCT UNITS TO GET THAT OZONE OUT OF THE PROCESS.
AND THEN THESE ARE YOUR BIOLOGICAL FILTERS WITH YOUR BACKWASH TANK THAT'S THERE.
THE, THE BLUE FILTER, THE BLUE VESSELS THERE, UH, SERVE AS THE FILTERS.
AND WE TALK ABOUT, UH, GRANULAR, GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON AND ION EXCHANGE VESSELS.
UH, I BELIEVE THESE ARE DOWN IN, IN THE SOUTHERN ARIZONA AREA.
BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE TYPICALLY SEEING AS FAR AS, UH, THESE SYSTEMS AND THOSE VESSELS WITH THE MEDIA INSIDE AND
[00:45:01]
THE VALVING AND SUCH TO ALLOW FOR THAT REGENERATION AND FLEXIBILITY TO RUN BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS THERE AND, AND ALL THE INSTRUMENTS THAT GO WITH, WITH MONITORING THE PROCESS.SO WHEN WE REFER TO THE BUILD OUT, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS IT? UH, YES.
YEAH, I WAS SAYING THAT, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THIS SIZE IS, BUT WE'RE, YOU'RE, YOU WOULD BE GENERALLY LOOKING AT, WHEN WE SHOW ON THIS TYPE OF LAYOUT HERE, THIS LAYOUT HERE AT BUILD OUT, EACH ONE OF THOSE CIRCLES IN THAT YELLOW AREA THERE REPRESENTS GENERALLY ONE OF THOSE VESSELS THAT YOU WOULD SEE.
UH, YOU'VE GOT HERE YOUR, UM, UH, THAT OZONE SYSTEM THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AND BAF SYSTEM, UH, AS WELL HERE.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT YOUR GAC VESSELS, UH, AND THEN YOU COLLECT THAT WATER, UH, DOWNSTREAM.
UH, LEMME LOOK AT A VERY SIMILAR APPROACH, JUST DIFFERENT NUMBER OF VESSELS IN SIZING AS SUCH A SIMILAR G UH, OZONE, VAF, THAT PRETREATMENT SYSTEM.
UH, AND THEN SEEING THOSE ION EXCHANGE VESSELS.
AND AGAIN, THIS, THIS IS ALL BEING SHOWN HERE, UH, RIGHT THERE AT, AT YOUR TREATMENT PLANT HERE IS WHERE YOUR, YOUR UV SYSTEM AND YOUR FILTERS ARE RIGHT NOW AT YOUR EXISTING FACILITY AND YOUR CLARIFIERS.
UH, THIS IS JUST A DESIGN CRITERIA TABLE THAT JUST GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF, OF NUMBER OF VESSELS AND SUCH.
YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM, FROM THE VISUALS AS WELL.
UM, TYPICALLY WITH THESE VESSELS, YOU HAVE THAT ABILITY, AGAIN, WITH REDUNDANCY.
SO WHENEVER YOU SEE THAT PLUS ONE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BEING PREPARED FOR ANY, ANY KIND OF DOWNTIME OR MAINTENANCE, IT'S ON, ON YOUR PREVIOUS PAGE 35, OUR CAPACITY IN THE PLANT RIGHT NOW IS 1.6.
THAT'S JUST A MARGIN OF SAFETY THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN.
UH, I BELIEVE TODAY YOU'RE AT AROUND 1.16 AND BUILD OUT IS, IS LOOKING AT ALMOST 1.66.
UM, AND SO THIS WOULD BE ALIGNING WITH WHERE, WHERE YOU ARE TODAY, THE 1.3, UH, AND THE 1.8.
UM, SO FOR THE TREATMENT PROCESS CAPACITY, WE BASE IT ON THE MAX MONTH CAPACITY.
SO THE, THE BUILD OUT AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY FLOW IS THE 1.6.
UM, BUT THEN WHEN YOU APPLY THE MAX MONTH PEAKING FACTOR, IT BECOMES THE 1.8 AND THEN SAME FOR THE INITIAL PHASE.
AND SO FOR THIS STUDY, WE PREPARED CLASS FIVE COST ESTIMATES.
UH, THIS IS AT A PARAMETRIC COST LEVEL AT A FEASIBILITY STUDY LEVEL, WHICH, UM, MEANS ESSENTIALLY 0% DESIGN AT THAT EARLY, THE EARLY CONCEPTUAL STAGES.
AS FAR AS THE, THE, THE AMOUNT OF DESIGN DETAILS THAT WE CAN GO OFF OF, UH, IT TENDS TO HAVE AN ACCURACY RANGE OF FROM NEGATIVE 50% TO A HUNDRED PERCENT.
JUST, JUST TRYING TO HELP GIVE SOME CONTEXT HERE TO, TO THESE COSTS BEING ON THE VERY CONCEPTUAL LEVEL.
AND SO HERE, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PRICING OF THOSE FACILITIES THAT WE LAID OUT THERE, WE SEE A, YOU KNOW, A GENERAL RANGE WHETHER YOU'RE WORKING WITH THAT GAC AND EXCHANGE, AGAIN, BOTH ARE, ARE VERY EFFECTIVE AND, AND RECOGNIZED BY THE EPA ARE IN THAT RANGE OF THE 26 TO 28 MILLION FOR PHASE ONE.
AND LOOKING AT THE 32 MILLION, 30 TO 32, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT BUILDING RIGHT OUT TO BUILD OUT TODAY.
AND THOSE ARE IN, UH, JANUARY 20, 25 COSTS.
SO LIKE FOR THE ION EXCHANGE AT BUILD OUT 30 MILLION, THAT'S ACCORDING TO THIS CLASS FIVE MODELING.
SO IT COULD BE AS MUCH AS 60 OR AS LITTLE AS 15.
AND, AND WITH THAT, I BELIEVE THAT'S TO HELP UN YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S MARKET FLUCTUATION AND, AND SUCH LOTS OF RED ROCK AND WE'RE FAR FROM YES.
THE VALLEY WHERE ALL THE CONTRACTORS ARE AND WE'RE USED TO GETTING IT STUCK TO US.
AND WE, YOU KNOW, USING
WE TRY TO USE, WE USE THE DATABASES WE HAVE, WE HAVE CONTRACTORS ON STAFF THAT COMPARE, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR BIDS AND, AND AND SUCH.
BUT, YOU KNOW, DOING THE BEST WE CAN WITH THAT DATA AND THE DESIGN CUR CRITERIA WE HAVE AT THAT 0% DESIGN.
SO WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE COSTS, THE TOTAL CAPITAL COST IS INCLUDING, UM, THE ACTUAL, UH, WORK BEING DONE AS WELL AS THE EQUIPMENT THAT YOU NEED, CORRECT? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
[00:50:01]
IS THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST AND OUR TOTAL PROJECT COSTS TYPICALLY ALSO INCLUDE ALL OF THE ENGINEERING THAT'S INVOLVED AND SOME ASSUMPTIONS ON IT, ON, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND PERMITTING AS, UM, AS WELL AS WE, WE PUT SOME CONTINGENCY IN THERE AS WELL.UM, JUST LIKE I SAID, WANNA BE PREPARED FOR COST FLUCTUATIONS.
I WAS JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED 'CAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT TOTAL CAPITAL COST AND YOU'VE GOT SORT OF SOFT ITEMS IN THERE AS WELL WHEN WE START TO TALK ABOUT THE DESIGN AND STUFF.
UH, ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PFAS PORTION? THESE, ARE THEY ALTERNATIVE ONE AND TWO OR ARE THEY BOTH? SO IN OTHER WORDS IT SAYS COST OPTIONS ALTERNATIVE PAS TREATMENT, G-A-C-P-A-S TREATMENT NINE, IS IT ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH? IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE ONE OR THE OTHER.
SO WE WOULD CHOOSE ONE OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS FOR OUR TREATMENT.
UH, WE'LL MOVE ON TO WE OKAY ON TIME.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT STUDY PORTION OF THE PROJECT.
UH, FOR THIS STUDY, WE, WE LOOKED AT RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY.
UH, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF, OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE'LL WE'LL SHARE THERE.
UH, THE INTENT THERE IS THAT YOU WOULD BE DELIVERING THE P-P-F-A-S TREATED RECLAIMED WATER.
SO WE, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE COSTS, SO NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT SIDE OF THAT DOWNSTREAM OF THAT, THAT PFAS TREATMENT, UH, TO, UM, UH, TO THOSE LOCATIONS, WHETHER IT'S, IT'S THE PARKS AND SUCH AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT.
UH, AND WE HAVE THE COSTS FOR ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION TREATMENT AND DELIVERY.
WE'RE LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION OR POTABLE REUSE, DIRECT POTABLE REUSE.
WE'LL GET INTO THAT, UH, THAT, THAT FURTHER PURIFICATION AT THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DOWNSTREAM OF THE PFAS SYSTEM.
SO YOU HAVE YOUR, AND WE HAVE GOT SOME, SOME DIAGRAMS TO SHARE THIS, BUT YOU'VE GOT THE TREATMENT PROCESS AS IT IS TODAY, YOUR PFAS TREATMENT AND THEN YOUR ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM DOWN DOWNSTREAM OF THAT.
UH, AND SO WE'LL TALK THROUGH, UH, THE DELIVERY OF THAT.
THEN POTABLE WATER IS THE AFFLUENT FROM THAT FACILITY, UH, TO, UM, TO TOWN FOR USE BY, UH, A ARIZONA WATER COMPANY.
AND WE'VE GOT THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
SO FIRST WE'LL TALK ABOUT RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY.
UH, OUR, OUR TEAM WORKED COLLABORATIVELY TO, UH, UNDERSTAND, UH, THE VARIOUS OPTIONS HERE, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO PARKS, THE VARIETY OF PARKS AND, AND LOCATIONS THERE.
AND SO WE LOOKED AT THREE HERE BETWEEN, UH, GOING STRICTLY TO THE HIGH SCHOOL TO THE HIGH SCHOOL AND SUNSET PARK, UH, AND THEN THE HIGH SCHOOL AND UH, SOME ADDITIONAL PARKS IN ADDITION TO SUNSET.
WHAT'S WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THE HIGH SCHOOL? LIKE WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE RECLAIMED WATER USE AT GRASS? THE HIGH SCHOOL? WHAT? GRASS.
WHAT GRASS? THEY, THEY HAVE ONE, I BELIEVE IT'S A, THEY HAVE A SOCCER FIELD AND A BASEBALL FIELD THAT IS PROGRESSED TWO FIELDS.
SO ROXANNE, CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR ME.
I WAS TOLD A LONG TIME AGO BY YOUR PREDECESSOR AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT THERE ARE, THERE IS PIPING IN THE ROAD CURRENTLY THAT GOES FROM THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UP THROUGH WEST SEDONA AND IT STOPS SOMEWHERE.
IS THAT EVEN TRUE? THAT IS TRUE.
WE DO HAVE AN AFFLUENT RETURN LINE THAT GOES FROM THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND IT TERMINATES APPROXIMATELY SUNSET PARK AREA AT OUR CARROLL CANYON LIFT STATION ON 89 A UH, OR SOMEWHERE IT WOULD BE, IT TERMINATES ON SHELBY DRIVE OVER BY, ON SHELBY DRIVE OVER BY SUNSET PARK, BUT ALL THE WAY UP, UH, IT GOES THROUGH FOOTHILL SOUTH, KIND OF BACK THROUGH EL CAMINO.
IT DOES NOT GO DOWN 89 A OKAY, WE HAVE A MAP COMING UP.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT WAS TRUE, BUT UH, AND THAT COULD HELP.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DELIVERY HERE, IS THAT THE METHOD YOU'RE LOOKING AT OR IS THERE ANOTHER METHOD? YEAH, THEY DID LOOK AT USING THAT EXISTING PIPE, UM, WITH SOME REHABILITATION TO IT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SITTING IN THE GROUND FOR MANY, MANY YEARS UNUSED.
ON THE ALL PARKS INCLUDE SUNSET PARK, JAMESON PARK POSSE, GROUND PARK IN WEST SEDONA SCHOOL.
WHAT ABOUT, UM, THE UPTOWN AREA? BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY OWN THE PARK WHERE THE HERITAGE MUSEUM IS, BUT IT'S WAY UPTOWN.
[00:55:01]
SO I'M JUST ASKING, WE KIND OF JUST TERMINATED IN WEST SEDONA RATHER THAN MOVING INTO UPTOWN OR TO THE EASTS THE LINE THAT I REFERRED TO.SO THE MAYOR REFERRED TO VERSUS EXTENDING.
THE LINE THAT EXISTS WOULD GO AS FAR AS ALL OF THESE AREAS THAT ARE LISTED UNDER ALL PARK SCENARIO.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE ORANGE LINE THERE IS WHAT EXISTS TODAY.
THE YELLOW LINE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE, UM, CONSTRUCTED TO GET TO, UM, POSSE GRAND AND WEST SEDONA SCHOOL.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT IS THE MATERIAL THAT THIS PIPE IS MADE OUT OF? IF IT'S PUT IN 20 YEARS AGO? UH, I BELIEVE IT'S P-V-C-P-V-C.
DO NOT QUOTE ME ON THAT THOUGH, 'CAUSE I'M NOT QUOTING ON
SO IT'S NEVER BEEN USED FOR ANYTHING.
I IT'S WHAT? DUCTILE IRON PIPE.
IT'S EVER BEEN USED FOR ANYTHING.
WHAT WAS THIS? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
WHY WAS IT BUILT? WHAT WAS THE INTENT? UH, IT WAS BUILT AS AN INTENT TO DELIVER RECLAIMED WATER BACK TO TOWN LIMITS.
AND I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS ALSO TO GIVE RESIDENTS THE OPTION TO IRRIGATE INDIVIDUALLY.
AND IT WOULD HAVE A MAIN AT EACH HOUSES? YES.
WOULD THAT THE ULTIMATE PLAN? WELL, FOR THIS EVALUATION, WE JUST ASSUMED IRRIGATION OF PARKS, BUT BECAUSE THIS PIPE DOES PASS THROUGH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT'S A WATER POLICY AND, AND RATE STRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED, UM, TO DELIVER RECLAIMED WATER TO RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
I DON'T MIND DRINKING, NOT DRINKING WATER.
NO, NO, IT'S NOT ALLOWED FOR DRINKING WATER.
IT WOULD JUST BE FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES AT MY HOUSE, BUT OKAY.
UM, YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS, UH, YOU MENTIONED SOME REHABILITATION NEEDED TO THAT LINE.
HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU AND HOW, WHAT KIND OF CONDITION IT IS? SO WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ASSESS THAT LINE.
UM, IT IS, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF ACCESS POINTS TO IT.
SO WE HAVE DONE NO ASSESSMENT.
WE JUST MADE SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT THERE WOULD NEED TO, LIKE, MAYBE THE PIPE WOULD NEED TO BE LINED.
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THOSE AS ASSUMPTIONS WERE, BUT YES.
SO BECAUSE THAT LINE HAS BEEN IN THE GROUND FOR, I THINK IT'S BEEN ABOUT 30 YEARS, UM, WITHOUT WATER IN IT, UM, WITHOUT USE IT, DR.
LIAR IS GREAT PIPE, BUT IT HAS JOINTS AND IT HAS GASKETS.
THOSE ARE THE PLACES WHERE WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE POSSIBLY FAILURES.
UM, SO WE DID MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO RELINE THAT, UM, AND DO A REHABILITATION ON THE LINE.
UH, YOU, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE WOULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND ACTUALLY TEST IT TO SEE WHETHER THE LINE WAS STILL IN GOOD CONDITION, BUT THAT WASN'T PART OF THE SCOPE OF THIS JOB.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE ASSUMPTION IN THIS PROJECT WAS IT'S LIKELY THAT SOME REHABILITATION WAS GONNA BE REQUIRED.
SO WE ASSUMED THAT IN THE COST ESTIMATES THAT YOU'LL SEE COMING UP ANY RISK THAT IT'S JUST COMPLETELY WORTHLESS AT THIS POINT, OR, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASSUMING WITH THE RELINING BASICALLY, IS THAT IT WON'T HOLD PRESSURE.
UM, WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT SOME PRETTY HIGH PRESSURES ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCE.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD GUESS THAT THERE WILL BE, THERE WOULD BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE EXISTING LINE, BUT NOT BEYOND THE ABILITY TO RELINE IT.
SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN BE USED NOWADAYS, UM, TO PUT A LINE LIKE THAT BACK IN SERVICE FOR PRESSURE, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR WHAT WE NEED FOR THIS PROJECT.
SEE IF I MISS, OKAY, KATHY, SO IF THESE LINES, UH, AND THE IMPROVED BUILD OUT, THE, THE ADDITIONAL WERE IN PLACE, COULD THESE POSSIBLY BE UTILIZED IN FIRE SUPPRESSION IF NEEDED? WOULD THESE BE OF ANY HELP IN IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT? UM, WE WOULD, I BELIEVE IT'S A APPROVED USE FIREFIGHTING.
UH, WE USE RECLAIMED WATER FOR FOREST FIRES ALREADY.
THE FIRE SERVICE TAKES SOME OF OUR RECLAIMED WATER.
UM, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL HYDRANTS AND, AND JUST, AND I WOULD THINK A TANK LIKE SO YOU HAVE ENOUGH SUPPLY THERE? WELL, THAT WOULD BE FROM OUR PUMPS.
THERE WOULD, THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH SUPPLY AT THROUGH THE LINE, ASSUMING THERE WOULD BE, YOU WOULDN'T NEED A TANK, BUT IT, IT IS A POSSIBILITY WITH ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND IS THAT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT? I WAS JUST GONNA ASK AS PART OF THIS EVALUATION AND I JUST FINANCIALLY REFLECTED IN ANY OF THE NUMBERS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED? YEAH, AND I JUST WANNA CHECK, DOUBLE CHECK THE REGULATIONS ON BEING ABLE TO USE THE, THE REUSE FOR FIRE.
I, I THINK I'VE SEEN IT MAYBE IN LIKE A, LIKE A CATASTROPHIC SITUATION, BUT I WE CAN, WE CAN DOUBLE CHECK THAT FOR YOU TOO.
AGAIN, WE, I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
JUST EXPLAIN THE, THE THREE OPTIONS HERE.
UM, THE, AGAIN, THE ORANGE BEING THAT EXISTING PIPE THAT WE ASSUMED WOULD BE, REQUIRE SOME REHABILITATION AND
[01:00:01]
BE LINED, UM, AS, AS WELL AS I BELIEVE IN THIS ALTERNATIVE, THERE'S, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL PUMPING TO GET BEYOND THE HIGH SCHOOL, JUST FROM A HYDRAULIC PERSPECTIVE, UTILIZING THE PUMPS YOU HAVE AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PUMPS TO GET, GET AS FAR AS YOU NEED TO GO HERE.AND THEN THE, THE LARGER ALTERNATIVE HERE.
SO WHAT GOES INTO THESE NUMBERS? IT SAYS TOTAL CAPITAL COST.
WHAT ELSE? UH, SO WE LOOK AT A COST ESTIMATE ACROSS GENERALLY 17 DIVISIONS OF WORK.
AND THAT'S EVERYTHING FROM EXCAVATION OF, AND, AND POTENTIALLY ANY KIND OF PIPE REPLACEMENTS AND NEEDS.
UM, IT'S LOOKING AT ANY CARPENTRY OR WOODWORKING THAT'S NEEDED WITH FORM WORK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S ELECTRICAL, IT'S INSTRUMENTATION, UM, AND IT'S ANY KIND OF MECHANICAL WORK, SO ANY OF OUR COST ESTIMATES, UM, SUMMARIZED BY THOSE VARIOUS DIVISIONS.
AND THEN WE HAVE BACKUP FROM THERE.
AND IN TERMS OF THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, THERE ARE PUMPS AND TANKS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE AS WELL AS THE PIPELINE.
SO THAT'S THE, THE REST OF THE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S INCLUDED IN THOSE COSTS.
I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF IT IS PROBABLY THE PIPELINE COST.
UM, THE PIPELINE REHABILITATION COST IN THAT COST ESTIMATE.
UM, BUT THERE ARE SOME SMALL PUMPING SYSTEMS AND, AND A SMALL TANK AND SUM IN THERE AS WELL.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE FLOW RATES ARE, ARE ACTUALLY FAIRLY SMALL NUMBERS, SO IT'S NOT BIG INFRASTRUCTURE.
UM, AND, AND SO THOSE ALL ADD UP TO GENERALLY WHAT WE CALL OUR, THE DIRECT COSTS THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS.
BUT THERE'S ALSO THE INDIRECTS THAT GO TO THEM RUNNING THEIR BUSINESS, HAVING THEIR BONDS, THEIR INSURANCE, UH, THEIR MANAGEMENT AND, AND SUCH THAT THAT'S A PART OF THAT AS WELL.
UH, SO WHEN WE LOOK AT, AT THESE, UH, THE THREE OPTIONS HERE RUNNING FROM JUST THE HIGH SCHOOL ALL THE WAY TO, UH, THE VARIETY OF PARKS THERE, UH, AGAIN INCORPORATING THOSE, THOSE EFFORTS THAT, THAT KARA TALKED THROUGH THERE, YOU'RE RUNNING IN THE RANGE OF, OF, OF 14 MILLION THERE RUNNING TO THE HIGH SCHOOL AS AND AS MUCH AS TWO 28 MILLION FOR THE, THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM.
SO IF I TRY TO DO SOME MATH, AND YOU TELL ME IF THIS IS UNFAIR, I TOOK YOUR $14 MILLION, THE, THE LOWEST ENTRY LEVEL TO GET WATER TO THE HIGH SCHOOL, AND I ALLOWED US A 30 YEAR AMORTIZATION PERIOD, DIVIDED THAT BY 12 AGAIN TO GET A MONTHLY AMORTIZATION PERIOD DIVIDED THAT BY 1.6 MILLION GALLONS A MONTH OF USE AT THE HIGH SCHOOL.
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE WATER IS 5.20 CENTS A GALLON.
JOHN CAN SELL IT TO HIM FOR ONE POINT SOMETHING CENTS A GALLON.
AND THAT'S NOT EVEN CHARGING FOR THE WATER YET.
THAT'S JUST AMORTIZING THE, THE CAPITAL IS THAT, THAT'S FAIR MATH.
WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT MATH EXACTLY, BUT I I DO KNOW THE NUMBER IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN, THAN A DRINKING WATER DELIVERY COST FOR SURE.
AND THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT OFTEN GETS WEIGHED WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT VERSUS RECHARGE.
AND WHERE WE HAVE SEEN TRENDS SAY DOWN WHERE WE ARE IN THE VALLEY AND IN THE PHOENIX AREA, WHERE UTILITIES WERE GLAD TO HAVE THE WATER AND WANTING TO REUSE IT AND, AND AND SUCH.
AND THEN WE STARTED TO SEE A TREND MORE TO RECHARGE BECAUSE IT WAS, HAD A DIRECT CORRELATION TO DRINKING WATER AVAILABILITY.
AND, AND IT WAS PART OF IT WAS RUNNING THESE TYPES OF NUMBERS.
SO YOU'RE, I THINK WE EVEN HAVE A BULLET LATER THAT THAT EXPLAINS THE, THE COST PROHIBITIVE NATURE OF, OF THIS APPROACH.
I THINK THIS MIGHT BE THE LAST SLIDE ON RECLAIM DELIVERY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THERE? ALRIGHT.
UH, WE'RE MOVING ON TO ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION.
FIRST, WE'LL START WITH A COUPLE OF DEFINITIONS AND, AND WHERE THE REGULATIONS ARE AT.
SO WHAT IS ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION? I KNOW WE'VE, AGAIN, PROBABLY HEARD LOTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO REFER TO, TO THIS LEVEL OF PURIFICATION, OF, OF WASTEWATER.
UM, BUT THIS, THIS IS THE LATEST, UM, TERM AND APPROACH THAT WE'RE, THAT, THAT THE INDUSTRY IS UTILIZING, WHICH IS REFERS TO TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF A MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM FOR USE AS PORTABLE WATER.
THAT'S WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE EFFLUENT OF THIS SYSTEM, UH, WITH OR WITHOUT LIMITED USE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFER.
UH, IN, IN SOME STATES YOU'LL SEE WHERE THAT'S RECHARGED AND THEN TAKEN BACK OUT AND, AND SUCH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMMEDIATELY AT THE DOWNSTREAM OF THIS TREATMENT PROCESS, UH, THAT IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE SAFE, AN EFFECTIVE SOURCE OF POTABLE WATER OVER DECADES OF IMPLEMENTATION.
I'VE SEEN THAT BACK IN, IN TEXAS AND OTHER LOCATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY.
AND, AND FRANKLY, THE WORLD, UM, USES PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES.
[01:05:01]
AGAIN, YOU'LL, YOU WILL EVEN SEE SOME FAMILIAR TECHNOLOGIES WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT HERE, PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES TO PRODUCE HIGH QUALITY DRINKING WATER.UH, AS FAR AS WHERE 80 80 Q REGULATIONS ARE AT, THERE ARE PROPOSED RULES OUT THERE AND THERE ARE COMMITTEES REVIEWING THAT.
UH, THERE'S UTILITIES AROUND THE STATE THAT HAVE HAD ACCESS TO THAT AND ARE REVIEWING THE REGULATIONS.
UH, THOSE, THOSE REGULATIONS HAVE EVERYTHING FROM, UH, YOU KNOW, SOURCE CONTROL TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT TYPE OF CERTIFICATION YOUR OPERATORS HAVE TO HAVE TO WHAT KIND OF REPORTING.
SO ACROSS THE BOARD, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THIS, UH, THIS WATER SOURCE? UH, WE'RE ANTICIPATING WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE HERE AND EXCITED TO HOPEFULLY SEE THAT REGULATION FINALIZED AND IMPLEMENTED IN SPRING OF, OF 2025.
UM, SO AT THIS POINT, UH, IMPLEMENTING ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION WOULD BE A, A POLICY DECISION FOR, UH, FOR MUNICIPALITIES.
UH, AND I'VE, I'VE TOUCHED ON THIS JUST, JUST A LITTLE BIT, BUT TO, UH, LAY IT OUT VISUALLY, WE HAVE, AGAIN, AT THE UPPER, UPPER LEFT THERE, WE'VE GOT THE PREP.
WE'RE AT THE END OF THE TREATMENT PLANT THAT, THAT YOU CURRENTLY, UH, HAVE ON SITE.
UM, THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THAT PFAS TREATMENT DOWNSTREAM OF YOUR TREATMENT PLANT, AND DOWNSTREAM OF THAT PROCESS WOULD BE YOUR ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION FACILITY.
AND SOME OF THOSE ICONS THERE REPRESENT A SERIES OF, UH, ULTRA FILTRATION MICROFILTRATION, UH, REVERSE OSMOSIS.
UH, YOU'RE SEEING, UH, UH, UV DISINFECTION WITH AN ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESS.
UH, AND THEN YOU'RE SEEING CHLORINATION OR, OR ADDITIONAL BACKUP DISINFECTION THERE.
UM, AS WE'VE MENTIONED WITH A BRINE, UH, WITH RO PROCESSES, YOU HAVE THAT BRINE OR THAT CONCENTRATION MANAGEMENT, UH, THAT YOU ALSO HAVE TO TEND TO.
UH, AND SO LOOKING AT THAT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL HERE, SEEING IT UP FRONT HERE, AS I MENTIONED, IT'S A SERIES OF, OF CHEMICAL ADDITION WITH LIME SOFTENING AND SUCH MEMBRANE FILTRATION, UH, ION EXCHANGE THAT, THAT GOES HAND IN HAND THERE WITH THE, THE REVERSE OSMOSIS AND THEN, UM, ADDITIONAL THERMAL PROCESSES DOWNSTREAM THERE FOR THE CONCENTRATE.
UH, SO WHEN WE LOOK AT VISUALLY HOW THIS LAYS OUT ON SITE, UH, YOU CAN SEE WE'VE GOT YOUR EXISTING TREATMENT PROCESS WE SEE IN YELLOW HERE, THE PFAS TREATMENT FACILITY THAT, THAT WE WENT THROUGH JUST, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF AGO, UH, HERE IN THE PURPLE IS, UH, THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION FACILITY THAT WE SHOWED IN THE PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM.
AND HERE WE ARE SHOWING, UM, ONE APPROACH TO MANAGING THAT BRINE OR THAT CONCENTRATE IS THROUGH BRINE PONDS, ALLOWING, ALLOWING, ESSENTIALLY RUNNING THAT, THAT BRINE STREAM OUT INTO THESE LARGE PONDS PONDS AND ALLOWING THE WATER TO EVAPORATE.
AND THEN YOU'RE MANAGING THAT, THAT SALTY RESIDUAL THAT'S THERE.
BUT IT, IT TAKES UP QUITE A BIT OF SPACE AS YOU CAN SEE, COMPARATIVE TO THE TREATMENT PROCESS ITSELF.
SO YOU'RE EVAPORATING, YOU'RE GETTING LEFT WITH A SALT, IT'S, IT'S GENERALLY A ASSAULT WITH SOME OTHER, AND, AND IS IT ACTUALLY HAZARDOUS THEN? 'CAUSE I'M LIKE THINKING LIKE THE SALT AND SEA IN CALIFORNIA.
I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF THE ISSUE THERE, RIGHT? THE WATER'S EVAPORATING AWAY, IT'S LEAVING HEAVY METALS, OTHER UNDESIRABLES, SALTS, WHATEVER, AND THEY'RE BLOWING OFF AND GETTING INTO THE AIR AND IT'S BAD FOR HUMANS.
SO DOES THAT HAVE THE SAME RISK? I MEAN, AT THIS POINT, I, WE SEE THESE IN A NUMBER OF PLACES AROUND THE STATE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE CONSIDERED, THEY'RE CLASSIFIED AS HAZARDOUS.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU'LL HAVE TO CAREFULLY MANAGEMENT.
I HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS, BUT I, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE, THERE'S INDUSTRY OUT THERE THAT USES THIS RESIDUAL, WHETHER IT IS ACTUALLY SALT COMPANIES, GYPSUM COMPANIES USE IT AS WELL.
SO IT, IT IS A USABLE PRODUCT.
UM, SO, AND A DIFFERENT VERSION OF THAT.
SO WE HAVE OTHER EVAPORATION PONDS THAT WE'RE PROUD OF THE BIRDS COMING TO SEE.
WOULD WE HAVE TO KEEP 'EM AWAY FROM THESE NEW PONDS BECAUSE IT'S BRINY WATER THAT THEY'RE NOT GOOD FOR THEM? IS THERE A WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ASPECT HERE THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT?
I JUST, I'M THINKING ABOUT THESE IN GILBERT.
I KNOW THEY'RE AT THE INTEL FACILITY RIGHT NOW, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE OPEN AND THERE'S, THERE HASN'T BEEN A LOT OF CHALLENGES THERE, BUT, UM, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A, A WETLANDS NEARBY I'D, I'D HAVE TO CHECK ON ON THAT SPECIFICALLY.
[01:10:02]
UM, I, I, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE A CONSIDERATION AS WELL.I, I'M ASSUMING THERE WOULD BE SOME FENCING AROUND THE FACILITY, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP OUT OR TRY TO KEEP OUT.
IT, IT WOULDN'T BE A COVERED FACILITY BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO EVAPORATE.
OH, SO, SO THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS WOULD BE, AGAIN, PRODUCING POTABLE WATER.
AND SO THE, THE DELIVERY AND, AND USE OF THAT WATER WOULD BE THROUGH PUMPING TO, UH, THE ARIZONA WATER COMPANY FACILITY THAT, THAT I BELIEVE IS NEAR, NEAR THE HIGH SCHOOL THERE.
AND SO WE'RE SHOWING, UM, IT'S A NEW PIPELINE.
THIS WOULD BE MOSTLY THIS OPTION WOULD, UM, USE MOSTLY THE EXISTING PIPELINE AS WELL, UM, WITH AN NSF CERTIFIED LINER.
SO IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE AN EITHER OR.
'CAUSE YOU WOULDN'T RUN BOTH THROUGH THEIR OKAY.
ROXANNE, WOULD I BE ASSUMING CORRECT, THAT YOU COULD NOT USE THIS WATER FOR A SWIMMING POOL? UH, IT'S CONSIDERED A POTABLE WATER SOURCE.
SO YOU COULD USE IT FOR SWIMMING, DRINKING, COOKING, SHOWERING, BATHING, YEAH.
I'M THINKING OF A NEW POOL SOMEWHERE IN TOWN.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS LAYOUT ON YOUR MAP.
AND IS THERE ENOUGH LAND OUT HERE FOR ALL OF THIS PLUS THE TRANS TRANSIT FACILITY? MM-HMM
SO THE TRANSIT FACILITY IS GOING TO BE, YOU SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, JUST THE
SO IT WOULD BE AWAY FROM, SO PRETTY FAR AWAY ANYWAY, FROM THE EXISTING WATER TREATMENT? CORRECT.
SO THERE'S NO, IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY REUSE IF WE DO PFAS AND A WP, UH, A WP COULD BE CONSIDERED A, A REUSE OF OUR WATER.
IT'S JUST TURNING IT INTO A POTABLE WATER SOURCE AS OPPOSED TO IRRIGATING IT OR, UH, EAR OR, UM, RECHARGING THE AQUIFER WITH IT.
SO IT'S JUST A, A DIFFERENT WAY TO DISPOSE OF IT, BUT IT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TREATMENT BEYOND WHAT WE HAVE.
I I, I I UNDERSTAND THAT PART.
I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT PHYSICAL EQUIPMENT.
EQUIPMENT OR INFRASTRUCTURE TO, TO GET TO THAT RECLAIMED USE.
YOU, YOU WOULDN'T NEED THE ADVANCED FACILITY.
SO I MEAN, THERE COULD BE A SCENARIO WHERE YOU HAVE RECLAIMED USES LIKE TURF AND THEN ALSO HAVE, UM, POTABLE WATER USES OR NEEDS.
UM, YOU WOULD JUST, IT LOOKS LIKE IN THIS CASE, YOU WOULD NEED TWO SEPARATE PIPES TO, TO GET IT TO WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
SO YEAH, I MEAN, I WOULD, IF, IF YOU THINK YOU WOULD USE IT IN A RECLAIMED STANCE, YOU, YOU KNOW, IT'S, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE COST INVOLVED AS YOU'RE GONNA SEE ON THE NEXT SLIDE TO, TO GET IT TO THAT DRINKABLE STANDPOINT.
SO, UM, I I TOOK THAT QUESTION SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY.
SO WE HAVE, UH, A SERIES OF EQUIPMENT, WHETHER IT'S THE GAC OR THE ION ION EXCHANGE FOR THE PAS, IS, IS THAT A REQUIRED, NECESSARY STEP ANYWAY, IN ORDER TO GET TO THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION? SO YOU'RE BASICALLY USING THOSE, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE THOSE ANYWAY IN ORDER TO DO THE ADVANCED WATER, OR DO THEY BECOME SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD SAY, NO, WE WOULDN'T USE THOSE.
WE WOULD USE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
AND SO YOU WANNA BE CAREFUL TO SAY, WELL, YEAH, WE'RE GONNA DO IT, BUT WE'RE GONNA EVENTUALLY THROW ALL THAT AWAY BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WANNA GET TO ADVANCED WATER.
I TH I I THOUGHT THAT WAS HOW YOU, WHAT YOU MEANT.
YOU, YOU DO STILL, UM, IF YOU'RE AS THE, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES.
UM, WELL, WHAT I ALSO, WE HAVE A CHOICE OF IN THE, UH, PFAS OF ONE PROCESS OR ANOTHER PROCESS.
YOU WOULD HAVE ONE, IF ONE OF THEM WORK BETTER, ALLOWS US TO MOVE INTO THESE OTHER AREAS MORE SEAMLESSLY OR LESS COSTLY.
UH, THEY, THEY WORK ABOUT THE SAME AND, AND WE SHOWED THE, THE COSTS WERE, WERE VERY, WERE VERY SIMILAR.
SO FOR THE PFAS TREATMENT, YOU'D, YOU'D NEED TO DO MORE WATER QUALITY STUDIES AND SOME, SOME TESTING, LAB SCALE TESTING, AND PROBABLY PILOT SCALE TESTING,
[01:15:01]
UM, TO DETERMINE WHETHER GAC OR ION EXCHANGE IS THE BETTER OPTION.SO WE'VE MADE SOME ASSUMPTIONS, UM, ABOUT THOSE IN THE STUDY, BUT MUCH MORE EVALUATION WOULD BE NEEDED TO SELECT ONE OR THE OTHER.
AND THEN, IN TERMS OF THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION, UM, WE ARE, WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND ASSUMING THAT WE'D LIKE TO KEEP THE PFAS TREATMENT AHEAD OF THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION, THE RO SYSTEM WOULD REMOVE PFAS AS WELL.
BUT THEN YOU'D END UP WITH PFAS IN YOUR CONCENTRATE THAT YOU WOULD THEN HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS AS, UM, POSSIBLY A HAZARDOUS WASTE.
SO, YOU KNOW, FOR OUR ASSUMPTIONS HERE, WE'VE ASSUMED WE WERE GONNA DO THE PFAS TREATMENT FIRST SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO WORK WITH THE PAS IN THE RO CONCENTRATE IS, ISN'T THE, BUT THERE ARE VARIOUS PERMUTATIONS OF THIS, IT COULD BE EVALUATED.
ISN'T THE PAS STANDARD FOR THE EFFLUENT SORT OF LOWER THAN THE PFAS STANDARD FOR DRINKING WATER? WOULDN'T YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB OF PFAS REMOVAL TO DO POTABLE WATER? RIGHT.
NO, OUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY COULD BE THE SAME BECAUSE, AND, AND THE REGULATION ISN'T, ISN'T OUT YET.
BUT THAT, THAT WAS WHERE WE WERE SAYING THAT IT, IT COULD BE BECAUSE THIS WATER GOES BACK INTO THE AQUIFER, AND IF THE STATE IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE EVENTUALLY USING THAT WATER FOR DRINKING WATER, BUT THE, THE REGULATION IS JUST, IS NOT OUT YET.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S GONNA BE HIGHER OR THE SAME OR THE REGULATION FOR, FOR PFAS IN WASTEWATER.
YEAH, THAT'S, THAT WAS SEVEN IS IT'S NOT OUT YET.
NO, THERE'S, IT'S NOT OUT, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED IN ARIZONA YET.
AND THE TREATMENT FOR PAS THAT WE'RE USING HERE IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS USED FOR DRINKING WATER.
IT GENERALLY GOES, YOU KNOW, REMOVES ALL OF THE PAS IN THE WATER, IN THE, IN THE WATER BECAUSE OF THE, JUST THE NATURE OF THE TREATMENT.
SO YOU WOULD GET TO NON-DETECT, UM, IF YOU RAN ALL OF THE WATER THROUGH.
SO IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS TREATING IT TO DRINKING WATER STANDARDS FOR THE PURPOSES WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR JOHN, AND YOU WANNA TALK, SO COME ON UP.
I HAVE QUESTION, BUT GO AHEAD.
WHAT IF WE'VE ALREADY REMOVED THE LEVELS OF PFAS TWO COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO AT GETTING, IS THERE THAT MUCH MORE PFAS GAINED FROM LEAVING THE HOME AFTER WE'VE ALREADY RETREATED THE WATER? LIKELY, YES.
AND, AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE IN STUDIES, IT'S, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE'S PFAS IN THE SOURCEWATER, THERE'S PAS IN 99% OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, MEANING IT'S COMING FROM THE SYSTEM, IT'S COMING FROM USES IN THE SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, DISCHARGE IN THE SYSTEM.
UM, SO TREATMENT OF THE PFAS, RIGHT? IT WILL CERTAINLY HELP, BUT IT PROBABLY WON'T SOLVE THE WHOLE PROBLEM,
SO I'M TRYING TO AVOID DOUBLE PAYING.
YOU PAY FOR THIS ONLY, NOT IN THE WASTEWATER SIDE, BUT IN THE, IN THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION, YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING, WE'RE DOING SOMETHING OR WE WE'RE TRANSMITTING TO YOU POTABLE WATER.
ARE YOU GONNA RUN IT THROUGH ANOTHER PROCESS, MAKE IT MORE PURE? I, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER.
I, I THINK THE ANSWER WOULD COME DOWN TO WHAT THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE.
SO IF WE DELIVER A WP TREATED WATER TO THE WATER COMPANY, UM, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE RULE MAKING SAYS, HOW THEY USE THAT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE TO THEN RUN THAT THROUGH THEIR NORMAL WATER TREATMENT PRIOR TO DIS DISTRIBUTION.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD COME DOWN TO.
BUT RIGHT NOW, THE, THE COSTS AND EVERYTHING WE'RE SHOWING HERE ARE TO DELIVER PFAS TREATED POTABLE WATER TO ARIZONA WATER COMPANY READY FOR ESSENTIALLY READY FOR THINGS.
AND I AM NOT AWARE OF WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO TO IT BEYOND THAT.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT AGREEMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE OR WHAT THE, THE RULE THAT WOULD BE A RULEMAKING THING.
AND, AND JUST PER THE DRAFT RULES THAT ARE, THAT THE STATE HAS PUT OUT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS POTABLE WATER, SO YOU'D PROBABLY CHLORINATE IT AND IT WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR DRINKING WATER.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE DESIGN OF THOSE RULES, IS TO GET THE WATER TO A, A STATE THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD TAKE A GLASS AND DRINK IT.
AND, UM, AND YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA THAT HAVE LITERALLY DONE EXACTLY THAT, TAKEN WASTEWATER FROM, UM, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS AROUND THE STATE.
PROCESSED IT THROUGH, YOU KNOW, A PROCESS JUST LIKE THIS, AND ACTUALLY DELIVERED THAT WATER FOR USE FOR MAKING BEER, UM, AND FOR DRINKING AT ONE OF THE CONFERENCES
[01:20:01]
THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR ORGANIZATION GOES TO EVERY YEAR.SO, UM, YOU KNOW, GLASS OF WATER THAT IS THIS, THIS TYPE OF TREATED WATER FROM WASTEWATER, WELL SCOTTSDALE GAVE US BARS, UH, ICE BARS OF TREATED.
THAT, THAT IS ONE OF THOSE DEMON DEMONSTRATION UNITS.
I WASN'T PUT THAT IN MY MOUTH.
BUT I GUESS AS WE PROCEED THROUGH HERE, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, I THINK THAT WE ARE ALIGNED WITH YOU.
MAYBE YOU CAN CHIP IN FOR SOME OF THESE COSTS.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A SERIOUS QUESTION, BECAUSE I THINK NO, IT IS, THE QUESTION IS TO US, WHY WOULD WE BUILD THIS ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT? WHY DON'T WE INVITE ARIZONA WATER COMPANY TO BUILD THE ADVANCED WATER SYSTEM AND BUILD THE PIPELINE? THAT, THAT'S, I, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO PLAY OFF OF WHAT THE VICE MAYOR WAS TALKING ABOUT HERE.
SO IS THERE SOME OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REASON? ARE WE OTHERWISE POLLUTING THE EARTH BY PUTTING OUR DISCHARGE INTO, YOU KNOW, OUR CURRENT EFFLUENT INTO AN INJECTION? WELL, THAT ULTIMATELY ARIZONA WATER, LET'S ASSUME, PULLS SOME, SOME WAY SOMEHOW SOMEDAY AS IT TAKES A THOUSAND YEARS TO FILTER DOWN THROUGH INTO THE AQUIFER.
SO ARE IT, WHY WOULD THE STATE CARE IF OUR WATER SUPPLIER IS GONNA WIND UP PROVIDING US SAFE WATER, RIGHT? SO, OR IS THERE SOME OTHER UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF PFAS BEING INJECTED BACK INTO THE AQUIFER BEYOND HUMAN USE THAT CAN OTHERWISE BE TREATED? GOOD QUESTION.
I'M WAITING FOR BRYCE ACTUALLY TO JUMP UP AND DOWN AND HAVE A SUSTAINABILITY ANSWER HERE OF LIKE, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE SPOTTED SALAMANDER OR IS IT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT HERE, THAT THERE'S JUST SOME OTHER UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF PFAS BEYOND, YOU KNOW, THE HUMAN INTERACTION ASPECT THAT WE'RE MOSTLY FOCUSED ON.
WE'RE, I, I DO KNOW WE'RE WORKING ON A, A COUPLE OF OTHER SIMILAR STUDIES FOR UTILITIES THAT ARE HANDLING, YOU KNOW, MANAGE THEIR WATER AND THEIR WASTEWATER.
AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE WHAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN DOESN'T MAKE IT WORSE ON THE OTHER END.
SO, BUT, BUT TO YOUR POINT, ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT TREATING IT AT ONCE.
AND, AND DEPENDING ON HOW THE AQUIFER WORKS AND ALL OF THAT AND HOW THE REGULATIONS COME OUT, WILL WILL HELP, HELP YOU WITH SOME OF THAT.
YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT REGULATIONS, AND I'M AWARE OF PFAS REGULATIONS, BUT ARE THERE GONNA BE REGULATIONS FOR ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION? YES.
AND, AND RIGHT NOW THERE ARE DRAFT RULES OUT, A NUMBER OF UTILITIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN, AND OTHER AGENCIES AND OR, OR ORGANIZATIONS, WHAT, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED.
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR
IT'S, IT'S NOT A, NOBODY HAS TO DO ANYTHING THERE.
IT'S, IT'S, IT WOULD BE A POLICY DECISION TO TREAT YOUR WATER TO THAT LEVEL OF, OF, OF ABILITY TO USE.
UM, BUT IF, IF A UTILITY DETERMINES THAT THEY WANNA GO IN THAT DIRECTION, THERE ARE DRAFT RULES OUT RIGHT NOW THAT, THAT ENTITIES ARE, HAVE COMMENTED ON, AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO FINALIZE THAT THIS, THIS SPRING.
BECAUSE THE, IN THE EVENT THAT ADJUDICATION, WHENEVER THAT MIGHT HAPPEN, TAKES WELLS OUT OF THE SYSTEM FOR YOU, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WASTEWATER FILLING SOME OF THE GAPS, CORRECT? YES.
SO THAT'S WHERE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE COMMON GOALS, WHICH INCLUDES COST SHARING,
RIGHT? I MEAN, JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE,
THIS, UH, PLAN WAS JUST LOOKING AT WHAT'S IT GONNA TAKE TO DELIVER A WP.
IT DIDN'T HAVE, IT DOESN'T HAVE A PLAN ON HOW TO GET THERE, IT JUST HOW TO PAY FOR IT.
SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE WHO TO DIRECT THIS QUESTION OUT, BUT IF WE DO SET UP THIS SCENARIO WHERE WE'RE DELIVERING POTABLE WATER TO ARIZONA WATER COMPANY, IS THAT WATER THAT'S GONNA COME BACK TO SONSONA OR IS IT GONNA GO TO ANYWHERE THAT THE WATER COMPANY SERVES? I JUST, I IMAGINE RESIDENTS SAYING YOU SPENT ALL THIS MONEY ON THIS AND NOW THIS WATER IS GOING AND HELPING THE ENTIRE VERDE VALLEY.
[01:25:01]
THROUGH THIS PLAN WOULD BE DELIVERING IT DIRECTLY TO A WATER TANK THAT ARIZONA WATER THEN DISTRIBUTES TO SEDONA RESIDENTS.AND THEN LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
WE ASSUME WE DEALING WITH ARIZONA WATER AND WE HAVE JOHN HERE, WE HAVE BIG PARK AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR STATUS IS.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T ENGAGE WITH THEM.
I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, OUR STAFF DOES.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT AS WELL? IT'S ANOTHER RESOURCE.
DO THEY DO THE SAME HIGH QUALITY OF PURIFICATION AS ARIZONA WATER? I DON'T KNOW.
WELL, UM, BIG PARK WATER, BIG PARK, WE WORK WITH THEM.
THEY ARE WORKING TOWARDS THE SAME MEETING, THE SAME REGULATIONS THAT ARIZONA WATER HAS TOO.
I THINK THEY ALREADY MEET IT THROUGH ARSENIC REMOVAL, BUT RIGHT.
BUT IF WE ARE LOOKING AT GOING, PUMPING THINGS INTO THE, THE WATER INTO ARIZONA WATER, SHOULD WE BE LOOKING TO THEM AS WELL? AND MAYBE SOME THEY CAN HELP ALSO WITH THE COSTS? I, I DON'T KNOW.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO BRING THEM AS A, IN AS A STAKEHOLDER TO SEE IF THEY WOULD RIGHT.
I THINK THEY JUST CHANGED THEIR STATUS TO A PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY OR THEY DID SOMETHING TO REGULATE, REGULATE REG.
WHAT IS THAT, JOHN? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE TALKING ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR WHAT FEELS VERY PREMATURE WHEN WE HAVEN'T EVEN DECIDED WHAT WE THINK WE OH NO, I GET IT.
I JUST, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE IN TOWN, WE JUST DON'T HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH THEM.
I DON'T WANT TO BE, TO BE FORGOTTEN, THAT'S ALL.
WE TALKED THROUGH THE, THE PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS. UH, WE TALKED THROUGH THE CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT SHOWING HOW THE PONDS FIT IN AND SUCH.
UM, TALKED THROUGH POTABLE WATER DELIVERY INTENDED TO, UH, BE CONVEYED UP TO THE ARIZONA WATER COMPANY SITE SHOWN THERE NEAR THE HIGH SCHOOL.
UH, AND THEN WE GET INTO COSTS HERE.
UM, WHAT WE'RE SHOWING ARE, UH, WE'RE SHOWING BOTH THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION FACILITY AS WELL, AS WELL AS THAT THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE POTABLE WATER DELIVERY, THE CONVEYANCE, UH, WE'RE SHOWING IT IN THREE PHASES.
UM, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, BUILDING FROM ZERO TO, TO, YOU KNOW, 1.3 BUILDING ALL THE WAY TO THIS WOULD BE IF YOU BUILT BUILD OUT TODAY.
UM, CONVEYANCE, JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THE, THE LARGE RANGE THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE, UH, THAT IS LOOKING TO NOD TO THE FACT THAT THERE COULD BE TWO DIFFERENT TREATMENT APPROACHES HERE TODAY.
WE HAVE SHOWN YOU AN RO REVERSE OSMOSIS BASED SYSTEM, UH, THAT IS CURRENTLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
THE REGULATORS ARE WORKING MORE TOWARDS PROMOTING, UH, THERE IS AN OPTION POTENTIALLY USE A CARBON BASED SYSTEM, UH, IN THAT CASE THAT THAT SYSTEM OR THAT APPROACH DOES IS, IS ON THAT LOWER COST END.
BUT THE CHALLENGE RIGHT NOW IS THAT, UM, A DEQ IS LOOKING TO MAKE THAT A MUCH MORE CHALLENGING APPROACH, IF EVEN POSSIBLE BETWEEN SOURCE CONTROL AND, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT PROCESS.
AND SO WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO HERE, RECOGNIZE THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF THINGS IN LINES AND EVERYTHING, BUT, BUT THE INTENT, WHAT THAT RANGE IS TO SHOW YOU REALLY THE, THE GAMUT BETWEEN RUNNING THAT CARBON BASED SYSTEM VERSUS WHAT IS MORE LIKELY, WHICH IS THAT RO BASED SYSTEM ON THE HIGHER END.
BUT THOSE NUMBERS WORK OUT EXACTLY TO THE WHOLE CLASS FIVE THING OF MINUS 50 TO PLUS A HUNDRED, RIGHT? BECAUSE LIKE THE A WP AT BUILD OUT IS 72 MILLION.
SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THE TARGET NUMBER.
AND HALF OF IT'S 36 AND DOUBLE IT IS 145.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S JUST ONE, ONE APPROACH AND YOU'RE SHOWING THE MINUS 50 PLUS A HUNDRED.
WE CAN BETTER CLARIFY THIS TO SHOW THE TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL BECAUSE IT UNFORTUNATELY IS LOOKING AT CBAT ON THE BOTTOM END AND RBA ON THE TOP END.
I KNOW THOSE NUMBERS HAPPEN TO WORK OUT.
YEAH, IT, THAT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE ACTUALLY.
BUT IT IS BASED ON TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF TREATMENT TRAINS.
UM, AND AS JESSICA MENTIONED, THE CBAT, WHICH IS THAT CARBON BASED APPROACH IS ONE THAT IS, WOULD HAVE THE SAME OUTCOME IN TERMS OF THE TREATMENT PROCESS BEING DELIVERING POTABLE WATER.
UM, THE REGULATIONS IN THE WAY THAT A DEQ IS LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW ARE LIKELY TO BE SO CHALLENGING THAT ONLY A VERY LARGE UTILITY THAT HAS THEIR OWN LABORATORY ON SITE AND IS ABLE TO, UM, IMPLEMENT A LOT OF ADDITIONAL TESTING AND THAT KIND OF THING WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT CBA PROCESS.
UH, BUT WE INCLUDED IT IN HERE BECAUSE IT IS IN THE REGULATION RIGHT NOW, JUST SO
[01:30:01]
THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THAT FULL RANGE OF COSTS.SO LIKELY AN ENTITY LIKE SEDONA WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE RO BASED TREATMENT AND THERE'S DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RO YOU KNOW, IT GETS A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED IN THE TREATMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE DETAILS OF THE TREATMENT THAT WE DIDN'T WANNA BOG YOU DOWN WITH, BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME MIDDLE GROUNDS IN THERE IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU COULD DO WITH THE RO, HOW MUCH YOU RUN THROUGH THE RO.
THAT WOULD MEAN YOU WOULD WIND UP SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THE CBAT AND THE HIGHEST END OF RO COSTS.
UM, BUT THE LIKE ONE 18 TO 1 45, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE RUNNING ALL OF THE WATER THROUGH RO TO PRODUCE A WATER QUALITY THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'D BE LOOKING AT FOR THE GROUNDWATER HERE IN SEDONA, ESSENTIALLY.
UM, BUT YOU COULD TREAT LESS OF IT THROUGH THE RO AND HAVE HIGHER TDS, YOU KNOW, WHICH WOULD BE MORE SIMILAR TO LIKE A PHOENIX AREA WATER.
UM, THAT WOULD BE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD MAKE MUCH FARTHER DOWN THE LINE AS WE STARTED TO STUDY, YOU KNOW, ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION.
UM, BUT THAT'S WHY THE BROAD RANGE, TWO DIFFERENT TREATMENT PROCESSES AND THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD END UP SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE IF YOU TREAT LESS THROUGH THE RO PROCESS AND END UP WITH A DIFFERENT QUALITY OF STILL POTABLE WATER.
ARE THESE RANGES CUMULATIVE OR IS THIS THE RANGE FOR EACH PHASE? YEAH, THEY'RE NOT CUMULATIVE.
SO THIS WOULD BE, UM, IT'D BE A DIFFERENT, I GUESS IF YOU'RE GOING ALL THE WAY TO POINT 0.9 MG D THAT'S 32 TO ONE 18.
IT'S, IT'S NOT ANOTHER 128 TO, TO ADD 0.4 MGD THERE.
UM, SO THIS IS JUST TRYING TO SHOW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO BUILD A 0.9 MGD PLANT A 1.3 AND A ONE POINT, AND TO BUILD A 1.8.
SO CLASS FIVE IS WHAT BRIAN MENTIONED EARLIER, THE MM-HMM
AND THIS IS THE NOMINAL NUMBER.
SO IT COULD BE 1 45 AT ONE AND A HALF TIMES THAT TWO TIMES OR TWO WHAT, WHAT WAS THE MINUS FIVE, MINUS 50 PLUS A HUNDRED.
TWO 90, RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, THERE'S FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD YOU CAN GO WITH THE DESIGN AT, AT THIS PHASE AND, AND, AND HOW FAR THE ENGINEERING WAS TAKEN FOR THIS SCOPE OF WORK.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THAT IS FOR NOW.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 30? I'LL JUST GO IN THE LOWER RANGE.
UM, AND OUR TEAM CAN FOLLOW UP WITH, WITH THOSE NUMBERS.
BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT FOR MATT
I WAS WORRIED IT WAS A ONE 18.
SO IS IT 32 PLUS 36? WHAT IS IT? UM, STOPPED.
THE, THOSE COST RANGES ARE LIKE TO BUILD A 0.9 MILLION GALLON PER DAY PLANT DEPENDING ON WHICH TREATMENT PLUS PROCESS OR TO BUILD A 1.3 MILLION GALLON A DAY PLANT OR TO BUILD A 1.8.
SO WE HAVEN'T DONE THE COST ANALYSIS TO, TO DO A 0.9 AND THEN ADD ANOTHER 0.5.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT COST WORKED OUT.
UM, IT'S JUST, IF YOU WERE GOING TO BUILD ONE OF THOSE THREE SIZES, IT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE.
SO IS THAT ACTUALLY A PHASE? I MEAN, IT'S NOT BE A PHASE.
WE COULD, WE COULD COULD CLARIFY THIS FOR FIRST THAN THIS.
PHASE IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT WORD.
OPTION WOULD BE, OR ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE A BETTER WORD.
THIS IS CHOOSING TO TREAT A PORTION VERSUS ALL THE WAY RANGING UP TO TREATING YOUR, YOUR COMPLETE EFFLUENT.
AND WE CAN, WE CAN CLARIFY THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS.
ANNETTE, DO YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? UH, NO, THAT WAS THE COMMENT.
CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UH, A MOMENT AGO, I THOUGHT WHEN WE WERE HAVING THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE, YOU KNOW, YOU AND JOHN, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT RO HAS AN OUTPUT THAT HAS TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN SAY JUST THESE SALTS THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, REUSABLE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE SOLIDS AND THEY'D HAVE TO BE MOVE SOMEWHERE AND THEY WOULD, SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED NOW 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE RO IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT'D BE THE HIGH LEVEL, BUT IF YOU GO THE HIGH LEVEL, THEN WE END UP WITH MA MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE TO GET RID OF OR MAY ACTUALLY BE CLASSIFIED AS TOXIC.
UM, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME PLEASE? SURE, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL TRY THAT AGAIN.
UM, IT'S, IT'S MOST LIKELY THAT YOU'LL END UP HAVING TO DO AN RO BASED TREATMENT.
SO THAT'S THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE MADE IN COMING UP WITH THE, THE HIGH END OF THIS, YOU KNOW, COST ESTIMATE RANGE.
AND THEN YOU DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE RESIDUALS FROM RO.
I MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, IT COMES WITH THE PROCESS.
ALL OF THE PHOENIX BASED MUNICIPAL OR PHOENIX AREA MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE LOOKING AT THIS, ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ELIGIBLE TO DO THAT CARBON BASED, THE LESS EXPENSIVE PROCESS, THEY'RE ALL ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE
[01:35:01]
GOING TO BE DOING THE RO BASED PROCESS AS WELL.UM, AND SO WE'VE MADE THAT SAME ASSUMPTION, YOU KNOW, FOR YOU IN THE STUDY AND WE PROBABLY CONFUSED THINGS BY GIVING YOU THE CARBON BASED COST.
UM, BUT WE DID THAT BECAUSE WE WANTED EVERYBODY TO KNOW.
LIKE THERE IS THAT POSSIBILITY SITTING THERE IN THE REGULATION, ALTHOUGH IT'S SOMEWHAT UNLIKELY THAT YOU'D BE ABLE TO EXECUTE ON THAT IN A WAY THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO USE IT.
UM, BUT IT'S OUT THERE IN THE REGULATION.
SO WE WANTED TO PUT THAT NUMBER OUT THERE.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT AT SIDE YOUR SIDE 49, UM, WITH THE EVAPORATION POND, IS THAT BASED ON THE IDEA THAT THIS IS AN RO SYSTEM AND THAT THAT EVAPORATION POND DOESN'T END UP WITH BEING SOME REUSABLE SET OF SALTS, BUT ENDS UP BEING SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE WOULD THEN NEED TO FIND A WAY TO, TO GET RID OF WHETHER IT'S CLASSIFIED AS TOXIC OR NOT? SO THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD.
THE RESULT WOULD BE FROM THIS EVAPORATION POND.
IF YOU TREAT FOR PFAS FIRST, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PAS IN THE RO CONCENTRATE, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE IT SET UP THAT WAY IN THE PROCESS.
SO THE MISSING PIECE IS THAT THE PAS TREATMENT AT THE BEGINNING, AND THEN YOU WANT THE RO SYSTEM ON TOP OF THE PFAS SYSTEM, WHICH THEN RESULTS IN WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS YOUR EVAPORATION POND.
WE HAVE THE PFAS TREATMENT AND THEN WE HAVE THE COMPLETE A WP ADVANCED TREATMENT SYSTEM DOWNSTREAM OF THAT.
AND SO, UM, IN THAT CASE, YES, THAT CONCENTRATE WOULD BE THAT BRINE THAT THEN WOULD OVER TIME IN THOSE PONDS EVAPORATE.
AND IT'S A, OBVIOUSLY IT NEEDS TO BE REFINED AND MADE WHATEVER PRODUCT, BUT IT IS BASICALLY LIKE A, IT'S A REUSABLE OR SELLABLE SOME METALS AND YEAH, OBVIOUSLY IT'S, IT'S IT'S WASTE.
BUT YES, YOU'RE, IT'S PROFITABLE WASTE POTENTIALLY.
UM, POTENTIALLY IF YOU HAVE A BUYER IN THE RIGHT, ALL THE THINGS WORK OUT OBVIOUSLY.
SO THIS GOES TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED VICE MAYOR.
IF WE DID THE PAS SYSTEM FIRST, THE PAS SYSTEM IS REUSABLE.
IF YOU WANTED TO GO TO THE A WP SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'D WANT TO PUT THAT SYSTEM IN FRONT OF AS A FILTERING SYSTEM IN FRONT OF THE RO FILTERING ITSELF.
THAT'S WHAT COROLLA'S RECOMMENDING.
UM, ANY, OH, I DIDN'T GO OVER BUILD OUT OR I'M SORRY, DELIVERY COSTS.
OH, WE HAVE, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION FACILITY COSTS, UH, THAT ARE, THAT RA, THOSE RANGES THAT YOU SEE, WE DO HAVE POTABLE WATER DELIVERY, WHICH, UH, I BELIEVE IS ALSO, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS THE LINING WOULD BE MORE OF A, A DRINKING WATER QUALITY LINING.
IT'S A NSF APPROVAL THAT, THAT THAT LINING, UH, HAS.
AND SO, UH, THE CONVEYANCE TO THAT ARIZONA WATER COMPANY SITE IS ESTIMATED THERE AT THOSE TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S DOING THAT FOR 6 630 VERSUS 900 VERSUS 1,240 THERE.
IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO THAT? ARE THOSE, THOSE AREN'T ADDITIVE, THOSE ARE JUST GOING RIGHT FORWARD.
BECAUSE I BELIEVE WITH THAT, YOU'RE BUILDING THE APPROPRIATE PUMPING.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING THERE.
SHOULD WE HOLD, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
DO THE INJECTION WELLS PLAY? THEY HAVE AN IMPACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? IS IRRIGATION VERSUS INJECTION WELLS HELP HARM NEUTRAL? HOW DOES IT IMPACT? UH, I WOULD SAY IN THE CASE OF INJECTION WELLS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CHOOSING TO, UH, PUT THAT EFFLUENT BACK UNDER THE AQUIFER.
SO IT WILL EVENTUALLY CUT BECOME, YOU KNOW, UNDER PFAS REGULATION.
SO, BUT OTHERWISE YOU WOULD JUST BE INJECTING THEM BACK INTO THE AQUIFER.
SO YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T NEED FURTHER ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION.
I'M THINKING ABOUT PFAS AND THE, NOT THE A WP, BUT THE RECLAIMED WATER, I MEAN, DOES IT HAVE ANY IMPACT AT ALL OR ARE THESE COMPLETELY SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT? UH, YOU WOULD BE CHOOSING TO EITHER CONVI, SO YOU HAVE YOUR, YOUR TREATMENT PROCESS TODAY IS YOU HAVE IT, YOU WOULD HAVE PFAS TREATMENT AND THEN FROM THERE YOU WOULD EITHER GO INTO AN INJECTION WELL OR YOU WOULD GO TO YOUR RECLAIMED DELIVERY.
SO IF WE DID RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY AND NOT A WP AT ALL, WE COULD DO A COMBINATION OF RECHARGE WELLS, RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY.
[01:40:01]
KEEP IRRIGATION, WE COULD STILL KEEP THAT TOO.WE COULD DO ANY COMBINATION OF THOSE.
IF WE MOVE TO TOWARDS A WP, WHAT MAKES SENSE IS TO PUT ALL OF YOUR EFFLUENT STREAM TOWARDS POTABLE WATER BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING A GIANT INVESTMENT.
AND NOT PUTTING IT THAT ADVANCED TREATED WATER BACK INTO THE AQUIFER.
YOU SHOULD, WE WOULD RECOMMEND YOU USING IT.
SO LET'S, LET'S JUST GO IN THAT DIRECTION THEN.
WE WOULDN'T WANNA MAKE THE INVESTMENT FOR THESE, FOR THESE INJECTION WELLS.
IF, IF WE WERE GOING TO MOVE TOWARDS A WP WE WOULD NOT, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND INVESTING ANYMORE IN OUR RECHARGE WELLS.
AND SO WHEN, SINCE THAT WAS GOING TO BE IN THE FY 26 BUDGET MM-HMM
SO GIVEN, GIVEN THE MAJOR DECISIONS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE HERE, I HAVE IN OUR NEXT BUDGET SESSION, I'VE PUSHED ALL THAT OUT ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR TO GIVE US TIME TO TALK TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, TO GIVE US TIME TO WORK WITH ARIZONA WATER, TO GIVE US TIME TO, TO HAVE ALL THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND MAKE, MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
SO I'VE PUSHED IT OUT ONE MORE YEAR.
SO WHAT WOULD THE COST BE ON MAINTAINING THE CURRENT SYSTEM? 'CAUSE THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS GOING TO NEED HELP IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO.
AND SO WHAT ARE THE ESTIMATED COSTS FOR US WAITING? UM, MINIMAL.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD LIKE MINIMAL, MINIMAL, 10,000, A HUNDRED THOUSAND, HALF A MILLION.
SO UNFORTUNATELY THAT REQUIRES A CRYSTAL BALL AS WELL.
SO SOME YEARS WE SPEND $10,000.
SO, BUT WE'RE TALKING MINIMAL COMPARED TO THE, THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ANY OF THESE OPTIONS.
'CAUSE THERE WAS A $3 MILLION, UH, ALTERNATIVE.
BUT MAYBE THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE RIGHT AWAY.
I'VE ALSO PUSHED THAT OUT TO GIVE TIME.
SO WE'RE EITHER MOVE TOWARDS RECHARGE WELLS, ALL THIS ASIDE, WHAT THE PLAN WAS TO MOVE TOWARDS RECHARGE WELLS AND NOT MAKE THAT INVESTMENT INTO OUR IRRIGATION SYSTEM OR MAKE OUR, OUR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE, TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT THE TUNE OF THREE OR $4 MILLION.
I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TIME TO, YOU KNOW, TALK TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AND PUSHING THAT OUT.
BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT PUSHING IT OUT AT SOME POINT.
I DON'T ALSO WANNA BE, UH, KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD THAT GATHERS MORE COSTS AS WE GO ALONG.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING, LIKE, AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THE SWEET SPOT, BUT WHAT'S THE SORT OF DROP DEAD, YOU KNOW, DATE FOR HAVING TO KNOW AND FIRST THIS COUNCIL OR A COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE A DECISION? HOW FAR OUT CAN THINGS BE PUSHED? SO IN TERMS OF OUR CAPACITY, UH, WE ARE, WE ARE DOING GOOD ON OUR CAPACITY RIGHT NOW.
SO I DON'T SEE ANY IMMEDIATE NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A DECISION IN TERMS OF CAPACITY.
WHAT COMES INTO PLAY, I THINK IS MORE COST.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE LONGER WE WAIT TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THIS STUFF, THE MORE IT'S GONNA COST.
UM, AND THE MORE MAINTENANCE AND, AND WHATNOT OPERATIONAL IMPACTS WE'RE GONNA HAVE LEADING UP TO THAT DECISION AS WELL.
SO, BUT IN TERMS OF FLOW, UM, AND AFFLUENT MANAGEMENT CAPACITY, WE ARE OKAY FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
MR. MAYOR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, ROXANNE, CAN YOU TOUCH ON, YOU KNOW, THE TIMING OF REGULATIONS? SO WE HAD THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE FINAL RULEMAKING AT EARLIER.
SO LIKE A LOT OF THESE DECISIONS ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS RIGHT NOW.
WE DON'T HAVE FINAL REGULATORY, UM, DIRECTION MM-HMM
UM, SO YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THESE TIMING ISSUES PREVIOUSLY AND SO I GUESS MAYBE IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE PFAS, A YEAR AGO, THEY WERE GOING TO BE DONE WITH THAT.
UM, AND THEN IT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS, IT KIND OF SLOUGHED OFF FOR WHATEVER REASON AND THEY'RE FALLING BEHIND.
UM, AND SO WE HAD, WE HAD MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT, HEY, WE REALLY NEED TO START MAKING THESE DECISIONS RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE THOSE RULES ARE COMING, BUT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE WE COULD BE ANOTHER YEAR OUT BEFORE THOSE RULES EVEN COME OUT.
UM, AND SO THAT WILL PLAY INTO ACCOUNT OUR DECISIONS ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR AFFLUENT MANAGEMENT.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY FOREGO PFAS TREATMENT IN WASTEWATER ALTOGETHER, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE AN EXTRA $30 MILLION TO PUT TOWARDS WHATEVER WE WANT AS OPPOSED TO IF WE WERE REQUIRED TO DO PFAS REMOVAL.
SO, UM, I DID, I HOPE THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
IT JUST, THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THESE ARE COMING OUT.
[01:45:01]
BUT SOMETIMES THEY, THEY DON'T MEET THOSE, THOSE ESTIMATES ON TIMEFRAMES IN TERMS OF RULEMAKING.SO I THINK FOR THE CITY, WHAT WE'RE WEIGHING IS, UM, IS OUR APPROACH.
WAIT UNTIL THE RULES ARE DONE AND WE KNOW WE HAVE TO DO IT AND EXACTLY WHAT TO DO AND WE'LL HAVE LIKE THIS THREE YEAR WINDOW TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE OR WHATEVER.
I THINK JOHN MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THREE YEARS OR SO LAST NIGHT, OR FIVE, FIVE YEARS FOR THEM.
UM, OR BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THESE ARE, UM, CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN, THE PAS ALREADY.
UM, AND YOU MAY WANT THE CITY MAY WANNA MAKE A POLICY CHOICE THAT WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD AND WE'LL ADJUST AS THE RULES COME OUT.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS YOU COULD TACKLE IT.
UM, THE WAIT AND SEE APPROACH, THE LET'S DO WHAT WE KNOW WE NEED TO DO NOW APPROACH.
UM, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE ON LET'S WAIT AND SEE A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE BIT LONGER WHAT COMES OUT FROM THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THE STATE LEVEL.
UM, BECAUSE THEY ARE LIKE REALLY BIG DECISIONS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I REALLY APPRECIATE COROLLO AND ROXANNE GETTING ON TOP OF IT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA BE CAUGHT SHORT.
UM, AND HAVING TO FIGURE THIS OUT IN A VERY SHORT TIMEFRAME AND IMPLEMENT IN A SHORT TIMEFRAME BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE.
SO I THINK WE'RE KIND OF IN A GOOD SPOT.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU'RE RUSHED TO MAKE ANY DECISION RIGHT NOW.
UM, BUT I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF HOW I WOULD FRAME IT FOR YOU.
I WISH WE HAD A SPECIFIC ANSWER RIGHT NOW, KATHY, FOR YOUR TIMING QUESTION.
UM, BUT WE'RE KIND OF IN A HOLDING PATTERN BECAUSE OF THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT.
IF WE WENT THE FULL POTABLE DELIVERY ROUTE, DOES THAT MAKE THE EXISTING INJECTION WELL IS OBSOLETE? IT WOULD, YES.
MEANS WE COULD TEAR OUT REALLY, THERE'S NOT REALLY, WE COULD JUST ABANDON THEM.
BUT WITHOUT FREE UP SOME LAND OUT THERE FOR OTHER USE POTENTIALLY.
UH, THE WELL SITES ARE FAIRLY SMALL IN COMPARISON TO THE, THEY'RE ABOUT AN ACRE PIECE.
SO ACTUALLY I GO AHEAD AND, AND IN FACT, ONE OF THE WELLS IS ON OUR TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY, SO THAT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE FREED UP.
BUT THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET, UM, IN OUR IRRIGATION AREAS, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT AN A, AN ADDITIONAL ACRE WE COULD FREE UP
MELISSA, AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION.
I, UM, GENERALLY TO YOU, MY QUESTION IS TO THE COUNCIL ITSELF.
I HAPPEN TO BE THINKING EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS THE CITY MANAGER.
THAT THIS IS, THIS, ISN'T THIS MORE OF A POLICY DECISION THAT WE AS THE COUNCIL CHOOSE TO MAKE RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE REGULATORY, UM, DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD GET RID OF CHEMICALS THAT WE KNOW ARE HARMFUL, UM, TO EVERYONE WHO'S LIVING INSIDE OF OUR CITY LIMITS.
AND NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO, WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO TAKE ON THE HARD CONVERSATION AROUND HOW MUCH WATER WILL THERE BE 10 YEARS FROM NOW THAT IS POTABLE AND DO WE HAVE POTENTIALLY A HUGE SOURCE OF POTABLE WATER THAT WE'RE IGNORING AND THAT SOME FUTURE COUNCIL AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE OF COST MAY HAVE TO THEN TAKE UP SERIOUSLY AS A, AS POTENTIALLY THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT POTABLE WATER INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TO THE COUNCIL, I, I WAS GOING TO FA PHRASE THE SAME QUESTION THAT THE CITY MANAGER WAS, IS, SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT THIS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE REGULATIONS COME INTO PLAY AND HOW FAR DOWN THE ROAD DO WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT OUR, OUR COMMUNITY IS GOING TO NEED? I MEAN, THE POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION'S GONNA EBB AND FLOW, BUT THE DIRECTION SEEMS TO BE TOWARDS REGULATING THESE, RIGHT? SO MAYBE THE NEXT FOUR YEARS WE WON'T SEE MUCH MOVEMENT, BUT DOWN THE LINE WE ARE GONNA SEE THAT.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO ECHO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT THIS NOT JUST FROM THE SAFETY STANDPOINT, BUT EVENTUALLY WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA DO IT ANYWAY.
SO DO WE DO IT NOW OR DO WE PUT IT OFF? UM, I THINK WE'VE GOTTA START THINKING ABOUT NOW, NOW WHAT ROUTE WE GO AND WHETHER WE GO POTABLE OR WHETHER WE, WHATEVER, BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW RATHER THAN KICKING IT DOWN THE ROAD TO FIGURE OUT IN THE FUTURE.
ROXANNE, YOU HAD A COMMENT? WELL, I WAS GONNA SAY,
[01:50:01]
UM, IN OUR, THE REST OF OUR PRESENTATION, WE DO HAVE THE START OF WHAT IS A DECISION MATRIX TO HELP TRY TO, UM, START THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDERS, KIND OF PUT A RANKING TOWARDS WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.UM, AND IT'S AFTER THIS COST SUMMARY.
SO I DUNNO, PERHAPS WE DISCUSS THAT AND THEN SEE WHERE WE LAND AFTER THAT.
ALTHOUGH, BECAUSE IT'S FRESH, I JUST WANNA THROW OUT MY THOUGHTS RELATIVE TO THE TWO STATEMENTS THAT WERE JUST MADE.
AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, YOU TALK ABOUT FIRST MOVER ADVANTAGES.
BUT IN OUR PARTICULAR SECTOR, I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S FIRST MOVER ADVANTAGES HERE.
WE REALLY WANNA SEE A STABLE TECHNOLOGY, PERHAPS WHERE THE PRICES HAVE COME DOWN BEFORE WE ADOPT IT.
UM, TWO, UH, CONSUMPTION OF THE DANGEROUS CHEMICALS IS LARGELY GONNA BE TAKEN CARE OF BY REGULATIONS REQUIRED ON ARIZONA WATER, RIGHT? THIS IS ONLY IF WE DELIVER OUR WASTE TREATED WASTEWATER BACK TO OUR PEOPLE, WHICH WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY DOING.
SO THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE AN IMMEDIATE MOTIVATING FACTOR FOR US BECAUSE THERE'S REGULATIONS IN PLACE, THOSE GUYS ARE GONNA HAVE TO MOVE.
THOSE DANGEROUS CHEMICALS ARE BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE WATER THAT WE CONSUME CURRENTLY WITHOUT US HAVING TO DO ANYTHING.
NOW, YOU KNOW, ETHICALLY WE'RE PUTTING IT IN THE GROUND AND IT'S GOING DOWNSTREAM AND COTTONWOODS TAKING IT, BUT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
SO I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT ONE THING AND I, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER SO I'M JUST GONNA THROW THIS OUT, BUT IF WE MOVE FORWARD SOMETHING TOO QUICKLY NOW AND THE STATE GUIDELINES OR THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES CHANGE DRAMATICALLY, WE COULD BE WASTING A LOT OF MONEY ALSO.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR IS IT DEFINITELY GOING IN ONE DIRECTION AND WE WOULD BE, WE WOULDN'T BE THAT FAR OFF BASE.
UM, I, I THINK THE BULLET ON OUR LAST SIDE EXPLAINED SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES THAT THE CITY MANAGER WAS SAYING THAT IT, IT IS ADV IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS TO WATCH AND SEE WHERE THE REGULATIONS ARE GOING AT THIS POINT.
I THINK IT, UM, FIVE YEARS GOES BY VERY QUICKLY
THAT SAID, UM, HAVING A VERY GOOD IDEA OF, OF WHAT WOULD BE INVOLVED FOR SEDONA IS WILL, WILL BE, WILL HAVE YOU IN A, IN A REALLY GREAT PLACE.
SO STUDYING AND UNDERSTANDING AS MUCH AS YOU CAN I, I THINK IS GREAT AT THIS POINT TO, TO SEE WHERE IT GOES.
ANNETTE, DO YOU RECOMMEND WE HAVE ANOTHER, A FOLLOW UP MEETING 4, 6, 8 MONTHS FROM NOW TO GIVE US, KEEP US IN THE LOOP OR SOMETHING? YOU'LL, YOU COULD TALK TO US DURING OUR ONE-ON-ONE TO KEEP US.
'CAUSE I DON'T WANT THIS TO FALL IN THE BACK BURNER BECAUSE WHAT MELISSA JUST SAID IS VERY, VERY TRUE AND, AND PETE AS WELL, THIS IS WATER WE'RE DRINKING.
WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, BE CAUTIOUS OF THAT.
BUT IF WE SPEND TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND WE'RE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, WE HAVE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
SO RIGHT NOW STAFF ISN'T RECOMMENDING ANY EXPENDITURE ON THESE SYSTEMS IN THE NEXT CIP BUT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT, BECAUSE OUR CIP IS 10 YEARS OUT, LIKE WHERE DO WE START PLUGGING THOSE REALLY HIGH LEVEL NOT HIGHLY ACCURATE ESTIMATES, RIGHT? WE DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO GET TOO ATTACHED TO ONE NUMBER.
BUT, UM, I THINK IN THE SHORT TERM THOUGH, IF I HEARD ROXANNE CORRECTLY, UM, THE ISSUE OF TALKING TO OUR STAKEHOLDERS, IF IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COUNCIL'S INTERESTED IN US FURTHER EXPLORING ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION, WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AT OUR LEVEL WITH THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND THEN COME BACK AND HAVE ANOTHER DIALOGUE WITH YOU ON ADDITIONAL WHAT WE'RE LEARNING FROM ALL OF THAT.
UM, WHAT I, I DON'T KNOW IF SIX, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WINDOW OF TIME WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD LEARN NEW INFORMATION SUCH THAT WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TO COME BACK TIMING.
SO THE, THE DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS WERE EFFECTIVE, UH, OR CAME OUT LAST APRIL.
UM, SO THE STATE HAS ONE YEAR TO START THEIR RULE MAKING PROCESS THAT WOULD AFFECT THE APPS WHICH ARE TIED TO THE DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS.
UH, SO MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM IS THEY'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT THE NEW ADMINISTRATIONS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE TEMPERATURE IN THE ROOM IS.
UM, AND, BUT THEY WILL BE STARTING THAT RULEMAKING PROCESS BY, UH, THE MIDDLE OF THIS YEAR.
SO, YOU KNOW, AS THEY START TO GET INTO THEIR RULEMAKING PROCESS WOULD BE ANOTHER, A GOOD TIME PROBABLY TO REVISIT THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE THEN WE'LL HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY'RE LEANING TOWARDS, HOW THEY'RE LOOKING
[01:55:01]
AT IMPLEMENTING THE PAS REGULATIONS.UM, AND IN THE MEANTIME THE A WP REGULATIONS WILL GET FINALIZED.
SO WE'LL HAVE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY MORE INFORMATION ALSO ABOUT HOW THOSE, UM, END UP BEING, UH, PROMULGATED.
SO JUST SOME THOUGHTS, KATHY? YEAH, THE ETHICAL QUESTION REMAINS THAT, UM, COUNCILOR DUNN PUT SO WELL, YEAH, THAT THERE'S A, WE'RE NOW KNOWLEDGEABLE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, YOU CAN'T UNKNOW WHAT YOU KNOW, RIGHT? AND NOW WE KNOW THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE OUT THERE THAT'S A HEALTH CONCERN THAT, AND WHAT'S THE ROLE TO START TREATING THAT? AND THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE, UH, ANNETTE, IS THAT YOU'RE STARTING TO DEVELOP, UM, A BUDGET WITH THE INPUT THAT WE GAVE FOR CONSIDERATION.
HOW, HOW DO YOU TREAT SOME OF THIS IN YOUR BUDGET DRAFTS, YOU KNOW, COMING FORWARD TO START PUTTING US ON LONG TERM TRACK TRACK PLANNING, YOU KNOW, TO, TO, TO START DEALING WITH THIS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE DO NEED TO WAIT FOR SOME INFORMATION.
OBVIOUSLY DESIGN THINGS TAKE TIME, THE EXPENDITURES WON'T HAPPEN.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE SAY, OKAY, WE CARE AND IT HAPPENS TOMORROW, BUT WE HAVE TO START THE FINANCIAL PLANNING ANTICIPATING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME ACTION NECESSARY.
SO HOW DOES THAT FACTOR INTO YOUR, TO THE BUDGET PROCESS? WELL, AS I MENTIONED, UM, THROUGH OUR CAPITAL PLAN, YOU KNOW, LAYING OUT, UM, MAYBE A PLAN A AND A PLAN B, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T WANNA MAKE A TON OF WORK ON ROXANNE, BUT IT'S ALMOST LIKE UNTIL WE NARROW DOWN WHERE WE THINK THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO LAND, WE HAVE THE SET OF POTENTIAL OPTIONS.
SO WE CAN HAVE THOSE COSTS OUT THERE.
UM, AND AS WE WORK WITH, UM, THE RATE SETTING, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE ABLE TO START DEFINING LIKE, OKAY, WHAT IS THIS REALLY GONNA EQUATE TO, TO THE RATE PAYERS AND HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS.
UM, RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST WORKING WITH SUPER HIGH LEVEL ESTIMATES.
UM, SO I THINK THAT'S ALL GONNA COME OUT THROUGH THE CIP.
WHAT I WAS HOPING IS THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE FACILITY PLAN PROCESS IS THAT WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHICH DIRECTION WE WERE GONNA HEAD ON ONE OF THESE OR ANY OF THESE OPTIONS, UM, SO THAT WE COULD START DOING THE RATE MODELING.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S, YEAH, THAT WAS THE GOAL.
AND I WILL SAY IN OUR, I JUST FINISHED UP MY, MY 10 YEAR CIP DRAFTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR ANYONE YET, BUT I DID PUT THE, THE COST ESTIMATES FOR PFAS REMOVAL IN THERE JUST BECAUSE I FELT LIKE THAT IS A REGULATORY REQUIREMENT THAT WILL BE COMING DOWN THE ROAD.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS OR WHATNOT, BUT, UM, I WANTED IT, THOSE, THOSE NUMBERS TO BE IN OUR 10 YEAR CIP.
UM, SO THAT WE, WHEN WE DO THE RATE STUDY, WE CAN SEE WHAT THE IMPACT THAT HAS AND HOW IF WE ADDED SOME OF THESE ALTERNATIVES, WHAT OTHER IMPACTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO OUR RATES.
SO, AND HOPEFULLY WE WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO SOME KIND OF STATE OR FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE NEW REGULATIONS THAT WOULD HELP OFFSET THE IMPACT TO THE REPAIRS.
I MEAN HOPEFULLY WE AREN'T, AREN'T BEING, UM, REQUIRED TO PUT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMENT UPGRADES ON JUST THE PEOPLE IN SEDONA.
TYPICALLY FOR LIKE SMALL RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, THEY DO, UM, USUALLY TRY TO ASSIST WHEN THERE'S LIKE A MASSIVE INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR A NEW REGULATORY UPGRADE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT IF THAT'LL HAPPEN THIS TIME AROUND.
BUT TYPICALLY THEY TRY TO ASSIST FROM THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
UM, WELL I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE REAL ID ACT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO REQUIRE CHANGES LIKE 10 YEARS AGO OR MORE, AND THEN THE STATE SAID THIS IS AN UNFUNDED MANDATE AND WE'RE NOT DOING IT.
SO IT GOT DELAYED AND THEN IT GOT DELAYED AND THEN IT GOT DELAYED.
THERE WAS NO FUNDING FOR IT, BUT THEN IT GOT DELAYED.
THEN THERE WAS FUNDING KIND OF TO UPGRADE SYSTEMS. AND FINALLY, I GUESS THIS YEAR WE'LL SEE 2025, EVERYBODY HAS TO HAVE THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE CHANGED, BUT IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
WELL NOW, YEAH, IT'S MANDATED.
YOU CAN'T THIS YEAR, THIS YEAR, BUT I'M TELLING YOU IT STARTED FOUR YEARS AGO, 15 YEARS AGO, ALL THAT OVER LITTLE ID CAR HMM.
ALL THAT OVER A LITTLE ID CAR.
[02:00:01]
YEAH, I KNOW, BUT JUST TO FINISH WHERE I WAS BEFORE, BUT IT'S A PAL WAGS DOG CART BEFORE A HORSE TYPE SITUATION BECAUSE I'M INTERESTED TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT EVER, IT'S READY IN ADVANCES YOUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY POTENTIAL SCENARIOS ARE THERE? 'CAUSE TO COUNCILOR P'S POINT, YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE LOOKING AT A PORTABLE WATER, BRINGING THAT BACK IN, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABANDONING WELL, SO HOW DOES THAT FACTOR IN? I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT, IT'S LIKE A MOVING PUZZLE.YOU'VE GOT SO MANY SCENARIO ONE THROUGH 100 TO POTENTIALLY PRESENT.
IT'S, I MEAN, I, I FEEL FOR YOU
WELL, AND THAT WAS WHY, UM, ROXANNE AND I TALKED ABOUT DOING SOMETHING LIKE WHAT'S UP ON THE SLIDE IS TO GIVE, TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON SOME CRITERIA ON HOW WE COULD WAIT AND, AND RANK THESE OPTIONS AND COME UP WITH A WAY TO HELP YOU COME TO A DECISION ON WHICH DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO.
UM, SO DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT? SURE.
SO, UM, IN, IN HELPING RANK THESE PROJECTS, WE, WE CAME UP WITH SOME EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE IMPORTANT.
UM, COST EFFECTIVENESS OF EACH OPTION, UM, INCLUDING CAPITAL, CAPITAL, OPERATIONAL AND LIFECYCLE COSTS, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, IMPACTS, WHETHER THAT'S A BENEFICIAL U USE OF FR EFFLUENT, UM, WHAT KIND OF WATER QUALITY WE PRODUCE FROM OUR TREATMENT SYSTEMS. UM, ECONOMIC, UM, IMPACTS.
UM, COULD WE, HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT LAND USE TOURISM? WOULD THERE BE POTENTIAL REVENUE FOR MANY OF THIS? UM, WATER RESOURCE AQUIFER SUSTAINABILITY AND WATER RE RESILIENCY.
UM, AND THEN OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY IS A BIG ONE FOR ME AND, AND MY STAFF IN TERMS OF, UH, DO WE HAVE A CONSISTENT MEANS OF AFFLUENT DISPOSAL THROUGH ANY OF THESE OPTIONS? SO, UM, WITH THAT, WE, WE DEVELOPED A MATRIX, AN APPROACH HERE WITH THOSE CRITERIA, AND I WANTED INPUT FROM YOU ALL TO SEE ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE CRITERIA? AND IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANNA ADD? UM, WE HAVEN'T FILLED THIS OUT BECAUSE I FELT LIKE IT WAS PREMATURE DOING SO BEFORE WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU.
UM, BUT, BUT THESE ARE THE CRITERIA THAT WE, WE TOOK A STAB AT.
AND IF THERE'S, THERE'S ADDITIONAL OR, OR LESS CRITERIA THAT WOULD WANNA BE CONSIDERED, WE'RE OPEN TO, TO HEARING THAT, CONSIDERING HEALTH AND SAFETY AS PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, IT WASN'T LISTED, BUT WE, WE COULD ADD THAT TO THE CRITERIA OR WE COULD MAKE THAT ITS OWN CRITERIA AS WELL.
AND WHAT SORT OF BEGS THE QUESTION, ARE YOU ON THE SAME PAGE? HEALTH AND SAFETY OF WHO? THERE'S HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR STAFF, AND THERE'S HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR PEOPLE.
I, I WAS, I, MY THOUGHT WAS THE PUBLIC.
I, NO, NO DISRESPECT
SO I, I WANTED TO ASK, I THINK YOU COULD, A QUICK QUESTION, ROXANNE, ON THE PAGE BEFORE, NO, THAT PAGE RIGHT THERE, YOUR FIRST MANAGEMENT SCENARIO, WE'RE USING THE WORD BUILD OUT CAPACITY AGAIN, BUT NOW I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS IS OUR COMMUNITY BUILD OUT CAPACITY FOR THE MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE.
IT IS OUR BUILD OUT CAPACITY AS WE'VE ESTIMATED FOR OUR FLOWS.
SO IF WE KEEP OUR EXISTING IRRIGATION, WE ARE LIMITED TO, I THINK IT'S 1.4 MGD, UM, DISPOSAL.
SO WE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE TO ADD A WELL TO, UM, LIKE A RECHARGE, WELL, IF WE WENT THAT DIRECTION, UM, TO HAVE CAPACITY TO, TO DISPOSE OF ALL OF OUR FLOW ONCE WE'VE REACHED OUR MAXIMUM BUILD OUT FLOW, WELL DOES HOW MUCH, UM, ABOUT 360,000 GALLONS A DAY GET FROM OUR 1.4 TO OUR 1.6 OR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS.
UM, AND THEN THE SECOND OPTION HERE WOULD BE TO ABANDON 200 ACRES OF IRRIGATION.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO BUILD TWO ADDITIONAL RECHARGE WELLS TO MAKE UP FOR THE VOLUME THAT IRRIGATION HANDLES.
UM, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, ONCE WE REACH, YOU KNOW, 1.4 MGD FLOW DAILY, AVERAGE DAILY FLOW, THEN WE MIGHT HAVE TO ADD ONE TO TWO ADDITIONAL WELLS.
WHEN WE DID THE EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT OPTIMIZATION PLAN BACK IN 2013, THEY ASSUMED A BUILD OUT FLOW OF 2.0 MGD, BECAUSE THAT WAS OUR, THAT'S OUR PERMITTED FLOW,
[02:05:01]
AND THAT'S, THUS, THAT'S SINCE BEEN REDUCED THROUGH OUR WASTEWATER MASTER PLANNING.UM, SO UNLIKELY THAT WE WOULD NEED TWO, WELL PROBABLY JUST ONE, AND THEN THE RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY.
UM, WHILE IT WILL TAKE SOME OF OUR FLOW, IT'S NOT GONNA TAKE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FLOW.
SO WE STILL WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A COMBINATION OF IRRIGATION WELLS OR POTABLE WATER.
UM, AND THEN ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION, WE HELD THAT IN ITS OWN CATEGORY, ASSUMING IF WE WERE GONNA GO THAT DIRECTION, IT WOULD BE 100% OF OUR AFFLUENT.
HAVE THE REGULATIONS FOR WATER, FOR DRINKING WATER BEEN ISSUED? I MEAN, YOU SAID YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA BE DOING DESIGN WORK.
ARE YOU DOING THAT AHEAD OF THE REGS? UH, YES.
IT IS KIND OF THE SAME KIND OF HOLDING PATTERN AT WHAT LEVEL? I, I DON'T KNOW.
UM, OUR, OUR CORPORATE WATER QUALITY GUYS, UM, ARE, ARE HAVING THE SAME KIND OF DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU'RE HAVING HERE.
SO THE, THEY'RE THE, THE REGS ARE IN PLACE, BUT HOW THINGS ARE GONNA CHANGE BASED ON THE SAME CONVERSATION YOU'VE BEEN HAVING.
THE REGS ARE IN PLACE, BUT WHETHER THEY'RE ACTUALLY GONNA REQUIRE THAT LEVEL YET OR NOT, NOBODY REALLY KNOWS.
I THINK THAT WAS THE, UM, INFORMATION.
I THINK THAT'S THE INFORMATION SHE WAS SHARING ABOUT HOW THEY HAD THE RULES IN, IN APRIL, OR THE REGS CAME OUT IN APRIL AND NOW ARIZONA'S DOING THEIR RULE MAKING FOR DRINKING WATER AND THEY HAVE A YEAR TO DO IT.
WE'RE, WE'RE MIXING MANY THINGS.
SO THE DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS ARE OUT NOW.
UM, AND WHAT OUR UTILITIES HAVE UNTIL 2029 TO COMPLY WITH THAT.
UH, I THINK EVERYBODY IS, HAS A QUESTION IN THEIR HEAD, IS ANYTHING GOING TO CHANGE WITH A NEW ADMINISTRATION? UM, HISTORICALLY THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
YOU KNOW, ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE NOT GONE AND, AND RESCINDED, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUS, UH, RULE MAKING BY THE EPA.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
THAT'S NOT GIVING US CONFIDENCE.
SO, SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH IS MOVING FORWARD AND, AND DESIGNING AND PLANNING FOR, YOU KNOW, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PFAS TREATMENT IN THEIR DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS. UM, TO COMPLY WITH THAT 2029 DEADLINE, THE STATE HAS UNTIL A, YOU KNOW, A YEAR FROM WHEN THOSE RULES WERE IN PLACE TO START THEIR RULEMAKING PROCESS FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT.
WHICH IS RELATED TO THE APPS BECAUSE THE APPS IN ARIZONA, AND THIS IS NOT TRUE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BUT IN ARIZONA ARE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER IS TIED TO THE DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS.
SO SOME STATES ARE PUTTING THEIR OWN IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT DIRECT TIE TO DRINKING WATER.
AND SO THEY COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WE WANT IT TO BE 20.
UM, RIGHT NOW, THE WASTE STATE, THE STATE OF ARIZONA'S REGS FOR WASTEWATER ARE WRITTEN, THEY'RE TIED TO THE DRINKING WATER NUMBERS.
SO THE DRINKING WATER NUMBERS ARE IN THEORY, WOULD FLOW DOWN AND BECOME THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT NUMBERS AS WELL.
YOU KNOW, WILL ANY OF THAT CHANGE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S REALLY TO BE SEEN.
SO THAT'S THE, THE TIMING DIFFERENCE IN THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE REQUIREMENTS.
BUT THE STATE IS SAYING THAT WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO FOR A YEAR TO TWO YEARS AFT AS PART OF THEIR RULEMAKING IS REQUIRE MONITORING.
SO THEY'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE GONNA PUT TREATMENT IN AND IT'S GONNA BE DUE IN FIVE YEARS.
THAT'S THE DRINKING WATER SYSTEM FOR THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM.
THE ONLY THING WE KNOW RIGHT NOW IS THEY'RE PLANNING TO ASK WASTEWATER UTILITIES TO MONITOR, UM, THEIR PFAS IN EFFLUENT SO THAT THEY CAN GET A PICTURE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING ACROSS THE STATE AND THEN EVALUATE WHAT IS THAT REQUIREMENT GONNA BE.
RIGHT NOW IT'S TIED TO DRINKING WATER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE THINKING IT, YOU KNOW, IN SOME WAY FASHION IT MIGHT NOT BE TIED TO DRINKING WATER OR THEY'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, GOING TO MAKE THEIR WAY THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
AND ULTIMATELY IT WILL BE TIED TO THE DRINKING WATER REGS, LIKE ALL OTHER CONSTITUENTS IN WASTEWATER ARE RIGHT NOW.
SO THAT'S THE BIG QUESTION MARK.
SHOULD WE EXPLORE THIS FURTHER, OR NO, I THINK WE CAN.
SO, SO ANY INPUT YOU HAVE ON CRITERIA, YOU KNOW, WE'RE OPEN TO ADDING THAT TO OUR MATRIX, UM, CHANGING SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT'S THERE.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT WE'VE, WE'VE PROPOSED HERE, UM, AND THEN WE CAN WORK TOWARDS A DRAFT, YOU KNOW, RANKING SYSTEM AT THE STAFF LEVEL, AND THEN BRING IT, BRING IT BACK.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AS THE CRITERIA.
AND THIS MAY FALL UNDER WATER RESOURCE, BUT I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO
[02:10:01]
CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER ROUTE WE TAKE, HOW IS IT GONNA AFFECT LIVABILITY 10, 20, 30 YEARS DOWN THE LINE? UM MM-HMMYOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT PUSHES US TOWARD THE POTABLE WATER TREATMENT, SO THAT, BUT I JUST WANT TO, THEY'RE NOT MAKING MORE WATERS.
UM, SO I JUST WANT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT, YOU KNOW, FUTURE COUNCIL LOOKING BACK AND SAYING, OKAY, WE WERE AHEAD OF THE CURVE, OR WE JUST KICKED THE CAN DOWN THE LINE AND NOW THEY'VE GOT A WATER EMERGENCY AND, YOU KNOW, WE COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT, OR AT LEAST STARTED THE PROCESS OF DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
NOW I WANNA KEEP THAT IN MIND.
SO HOW WOULD YOU CATEGORIZE THAT FUTURE LIVABILITY? IS THAT YOUR YEAH, AND I MEAN, AND IT, I THINK IT FALLS ONE OF THE, IF YOU GO BACK AQUA AQUIFER, SUSTAIN SUSTAINABILITY, WATER RESILIENCY, I THINK THIS ALL FALLS INTO THAT.
BUT I JUST, I WANT US TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE IN 30 YEARS.
WHAT'S OUR WATER SITUATION GONNA LOOK LIKE IN 30 YEARS? I'LL BE DEAD THEN.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I DO WANT TO THINK ABOUT FUTURE GENERATIONS OF SEDONA.
SO, MR. MAYOR, WE COULD BRING, I MEAN BETWEEN NOW AND FEBRUARY 12TH WHEN WE DO THE WRAP UP PRIORITIES WORK SESSION, WE COULD HAVE YOU SEND ME ANY THOUGHTS YOU HAVE ON IT, AND THEN WE COULD, UM, PUT A FINAL DRAFT MATRIX, SO TO SPEAK TOGETHER, UM, THAT I COULD BRING BACK TO AT THAT FEBRUARY 12TH MEETING.
'CAUSE WASTEWATER THIS PROJECT IS, YOU KNOW, ON THAT LIST, UM, YEAH, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
OR DURING YOUR ONE-ON-ONES, THEY COULD, EACH COUNSELOR COULD SHARE SURE.
WHATEVER MECHANISM WORKS BEST FOR YOU.
BUT, UM, I THINK WE'D WANNA TRY TO GET THAT PINNED DOWN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
ROXANNE CAN USE IT IN HER BUDGET PROCESS.
I, I BELIEVE THIS IS OUR LAST SLIDE.
UH, I THINK IT KIND OF SUMS UP SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
UM, SO AS FAR AS ADDRESSING PFAS TREATMENT, UM, LIKE I WAS SAYING AT, AT THIS TIME, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION SINCE THIS THAT'S EVOLVED ABOUT WHETHER, YOU KNOW, PRO BEING PROACTIVE VERSUS, UM, WATCHING THE REGULATION THERE.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS RECOMMENDED THE CITY, UH, PLAN TO INCLUDE THE COST OF PFAS, UH, TREATMENT IN THE 10 YEAR PLAN.
AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE NUANCES TO THAT OF WHERE, WHEN AND HOW, UH, AND THEN TIMING TO BE EVALUATED THERE OF WHERE THAT SITS BASED ON THE APPROACH TO THE RULEMAKING THAT IS, IS EVOLVING EVERY DAY,
SO, UH, AS FAR AS RECLAIMED DELIVERY, UH, WE DID HAVE A BIT OF DISCUSSION HERE IN, IN NOTING THAT THIS, THIS IS A RATHER LARGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT WITH, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT THAT RETURN IS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT VERSUS LONG TERM LIVABILITY AND WATER SUPPLY, THAT YOU KNOW THAT THAT RANKING AND DECISION THERE MAY, MAY MODIFY SLIGHTLY.
UM, AND THEN CONSIDERATION WOULD NEED TO BE GIVEN TO RATE STRUCTURE OBVIOUSLY FOR THAT WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE TAKING THIS INTO FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
AND THEN AS FAR AS ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION AND POTABLE DELIVERY, AGAIN, IT'S NOT A CURRENT REQUIREMENT, IT WOULD BE A POLICY DECISION AT THIS POINT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE OPTION MAY BE BENEFICIAL BASED ON SPECIFIC NEEDS, LONG, LONG TERM AS FAR AS WATER SUPPLY.
AND THEN POLICY DECISIONS REGARDING THE APPROACH TO ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION, UH, MUST CONSIDER A VARIETY OF COSTS AND NON-COST CRITERIA.
UH, WITH, WITH SIMILAR STUDIES WE'VE, WE'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC AS, AS A CONS, YOU KNOW, MANY, MANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BESIDES COSTS.
SO THAT, I BELIEVE THAT IS OUR LAST PREPARED SLIDE AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THE FINDINGS IN OUR STUDY TODAY.
IF I COULD REACT TO A COUPLE OF THOSE LAST, THOSE STATEMENTS ON YOUR LAST SLIDE IN THE PFAS TREATMENT? YEAH, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY REASONABLE ONE TO INCLUDE THE FUTURE COSTS SOMEWHERE IN THE PLAN, BUT I, IT JUST OCCURS TO ME TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD REALLY CUT OUT THE BOTTOM END OF THESE COST REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE FROM WHAT I HEAR, IT'S REALLY NOT FOR SEDONA, RIGHT? WE'RE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT LOWER WATER STANDARD.
WE'RE GONNA BE ON THE RO ISH SIDE OF THINGS.
AND SO WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT BIG A RANGE.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PICK A NUMBER OUTTA THAT RANGE, BUT YEAH, THAT'S FOR A WP FOR THE PAS, WE HAD A THANK YOU.
WE HAD A RIGHT CLASS FIVE OF COST.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING I JUST WANTED TO PUT OUT THERE IS THAT PERSONALLY FOR ME AS A COUNSELOR, I'M NOT VERY INTERESTED IN BEING IN THE WATER DELIVERY BUSINESS.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PUT THE RED CARPET OUT AT OUR PLANT AND ALLOW ARIZONA WATER
[02:15:01]
OR ANYBODY ELSE TO COME TALK TO US ABOUT WHAT THEY COULD DO TO DELIVER WATER IN THIS REGION.BUT I SUSPECT THAT JOHN WOULD DRILL A THOUSAND WELLS AROUND SEDONA LOOKING FOR MORE WATER BEFORE HE WOULD BUILD A PLANT OUT AT OUR TREATMENT PLANT FOR MORE WATER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST NO ACTUALLY REACTING TO THESE NUMBERS.
THEY'RE BIG
OUR WATER RESOURCE PASSED ASKED YOU CAN HELP OUT TOO WHEREVER.
UM, YES, THOSE DISCUSSIONS HAVE COME UP IN THE, IN THE, UM, WATER RESOURCE MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE.
BETWEEN, I CAN IMAGINE THERE'S ON A WATER.
WE'D LOVE TO TAKE NO COST WATER THAT COST US $145 MILLION TO DELIVER TO 'EM.
IT DID NOT, WE DID NOT GET IT TO THAT.
IT WAS JUST AT A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL THAT THEY PROPOSED THAT.
AND IT, IT WAS SO HIGH LEVEL THINKING IT WASN'T EVEN, YOU KNOW, DETERMINED WHETHER THAT WOULD BE VIA A WP, YOU KNOW, A DIRECT POTABLE SOURCE FOR THEM OR WHETHER THAT WOULD BE JUST AN OFFSET, YOU KNOW, IF WE USED IT FOR IRRIGATION AND, AND BUILT A WHOLE RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM THROUGHOUT TOWN TO OFFSET POTABLE DEMAND FOR, UH, IRRIGATION.
I, I'LL JUST GO BACK TO MY BASE STATEMENT IS I'M NOT VERY INTERESTED IN EXPANDING THE SEDONA CITY PALLET OF SERVICES TO BE IN THE WATER DELIVERY BUSINESS.
I THINK THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR DELIVERS WATER AND CAN CONTINUE DELIVER WATER.
THANK WE DO HAVE CREDITS YOU COULD BUY
ALL RIGHT, BRIAN, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION TODAY.
ROXANNE, I'M CURIOUS, DID WE MEET OR EXCEED YOUR EXPECTATIONS AROUND ENGAGEMENT ON THIS? UH, YOU MET? YEAH.
UM, I'M VERY CLEAR ON, UH, ON WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING AT THIS POINT.
I MEAN, PFAS WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO IT, BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO BE GAINED BY ANTICIPATING WHAT REGULATION IS GONNA WIND UP COMING DOWN.
SO TO ME, IT'S A MATTER OF BEING REACTIVE.
I AGREE WITH, UH, COUNCILOR PETE, THAT SHOULD BE IN THE CAPITAL, THE CIP PLAN SOME YEARS OUT, MOST LIKELY, UH, THE RECLAIMED WATER DELIVERY, THAT'S A DOG, NO WAY.
LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN FOR FIVE OR 10 YEARS.
AND A WP THAT TO ME ALSO IS A DOG.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S KICKING A CAN DOWN THE CURB TO SAY NO, UH, AT THIS TIME, NOT WHEN AZ WATER HAS REPEATEDLY TOLD THIS BODY THAT THE WATER IN THE AQUIFERS AS MEASURED HAS BEEN STABLE.
RECOGNIZING IT'S STABLE STILL MEANS IT'S GOING DOWN, BUT NOT AT A RATE THAT IS OF CONCERN AT THIS TIME.
AND SO, IS IT POSSIBLE SOMEDAY WE MIGHT NEED A WP? YEAH, BUT AT A COST THAT COULD BE A HUNDRED TO $200 MILLION.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT BONDING FOR THAT HOLY SMOKES, RIGHT? LIKE WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF YEARS YOU CAN BOND A CIP P TYPE PROJECT? ANY IDEA? I THINK IT'S TYPICALLY LESS THAN 30, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S LIKE A LEGAL MAXIMUM.
I THINK YOU REALLY JUST TIE IT TO THE LIFE OF THE ASSET AND YOUR INTEREST, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF THING.
AND WHETHER MUNICIPAL BOND BUYERS WOULD EVEN BE INTERESTED IN PURCHASING A COUPON THAT FAR OUT IN THE FUTURE.
'CAUSE I, I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN MANY PAST 30.
'CAUSE I GUESSED 30 AT A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS AND CAME OUT AT A COST PER HOUSEHOLD AT ABOUT $540 A YEAR OF INCREMENTAL COST TO COVER THAT OVER THE 30 YEARS.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA GO OVER REALLY WELL.
SO I, I THINK IT HAS TO BE REACTIVE IF WE EVER GO DOWN THE PATH OF A WP 'CAUSE THAT IS JUST SUCH A PROFOUNDLY HIGH EXPENSE.
YOU JUST, I, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WOULD VOLUNTARILY DO THAT.
SO, AND I LIKE COUNCILOR PETE'S IDEA ABOUT, UH, LET AZ WATER GET INTO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO GET, UM, PFAS TREATED WATER ANYWHERE.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM, NO, I THINK WE HAVE WHAT WE NEEDED.
ANNETTE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? OKAY.
COUNSELORS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN CLOSING? OKAY.
[02:20:02]
UH, WE HAVE ITEM, UH, B, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING, UH, IDEAS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDA ITEMS, ANYTHING.[5. ADJOURNMENT]
NOW THIS MEETING'S ADJOURNED.