Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City hears midterm water-feasibility study; staff says GBRA Water Secure participation is likely unaffordable
Summary
Consultants told council that Victoria's current water rights meet average demand but are vulnerable during low river-flow conditions; study is evaluating groundwater expansion, off-channel storage, desalination and reuse. Staff estimated GBRA Water Secure participation would require a capital contribution in the hundreds of millions and said the市
Consultants from CDM Smith updated the Victoria City Council on Oct. 21 on a city-funded water-feasibility study that projects municipal water needs through 2080 and evaluates possible supply options to increase drought reliability.
The study team presented demand forecasts that assume modest population growth (about 15% over 50 years under the analysts' midline projection) and estimated average city demand rising from about 10–11 million gallons per day (MGD) today to roughly 12–13 MGD over the planning horizon. Consultants said Victoria currently holds multiple surface-water rights (combined theoretical allocations cited in the presentation) and groundwater rights, and maintains about 20–25 days of off-channel storage used during low-flow periods.
CDM Smith highlighted two river-flow thresholds that materially affect withdrawals: roughly 300 cubic feet per second (CFS), below which some rights restrict pumping (the largest right cited restriction for July–August), and about 100 CFS, below which pumping becomes physically difficult. Consultants noted that some modeled future climate scenarios increase the frequency of low-flow conditions, which raises the value of drought-reliable supplies.
The study is evaluating supply options including increased use and permitting of groundwater wells, improvements to off-channel storage, participation in GBRA's Water Secure regional project, desalination (including port-led projects), and various forms of water reuse. Aquifer-storage-and-recovery (ASR) approaches and very long-distance bay intake options were screened out or deprioritized in early analysis because of technical, cost and availability constraints.
City staff provided a high-level cost estimate for joining GBRA's Water Secure project: staff described a capital-seat contribution in the range of approximately $250 million for a 5 MGD seat up to about $500 million for 10 MGD over a 40-year period (staff stressed these are rounded, high-level figures and do not include water-treatment or operating costs). After that estimate was presented, staff said the costs make GBRA participation infeasible for Victoria and indicated they would inform GBRA accordingly; council members voiced concurrence. CDM Smith and staff said the analysis will continue to score candidate options on reliability, cost, permitting complexity and water quality and that the next update will present the scored options and recommended strategy.
No formal council action was recorded on the study; staff presented the update and received council questions about ASR, operational tactics during low flows and next steps. City staff emphasized the exercise is proactive and that Victoria does not currently have an immediate water-service crisis.
