Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cap Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carpinteria project team reports CAP design, permits and mixed funding path as bid timeline approaches
Summary
Project team reported 100% design documents imminent for the Carpinteria Advanced Purification (CAP) project, permitting steps with regional and state regulators underway, and a mixed funding plan that includes federal Title 16 funds, state grants and an SRF loan; staff said May bidding and continued outreach are planned.
The Carpinteria Valley Water District reported progress on its Advanced Water Purification Facility (CAP), with design documents nearing 100% and updated cost estimates due before the board considers construction contracts. Project manager Rob Morrow said the CAP includes an advanced treatment plant, purified-water pipeline and injection and monitoring wells sited near St. Joe’s Church and Meadowview to allow local storage and recovery.
Morrow told directors the team is working through major permits: a conditional use/coastal element permit with the city, Waste Discharge Requirements with the regional water board and a Title 22 engineering report to the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW). He said the DDW review and final regional approvals are likely to take at least a year, though staff aims to submit key reports in the coming weeks.
On funding, staff outlined a combination of grants and low-interest financing: a $1.2 million Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) grant, a Water Recycling Funding Program allocation (previously $5 million, adjusted to $8 million in the state file), an existing SRF loan at low interest, and a Bureau of Reclamation Title 16 award of about $9.7 million that cannot be drawn down until Congress names it in a federal budget or continuing resolution. Morrow said the team is pressing representatives to secure the Title 16 naming in time to support May bid activity.
Morrow said contractor interest has been steady: four site visits to the AWPF location and several firms expressing interest. Staff plans to advertise AWPF construction bids in May and pipeline and wells in parallel so the board has competitive numbers before awarding contracts.
On siting and regulatory compliance, Morrow explained the project includes injection wells and a network of monitoring wells between injection and potable wells to meet Title 22 intent; the team is seeking to avoid an additional Memorial Park monitoring well if existing monitoring can meet the regulatory travel-time criteria. He said the regional board’s anti‑degradation focus requires demonstrations that recharge will not harm existing users; staff concluded the purified water will generally be higher quality than current groundwater.
Board members pressed staff on easement status at St. Joe’s Church; Morrow said a counteroffer was received and staff will return with negotiation details. Directors also asked about wastewater sources to the AWPF; staff agreed to clarify communications to specify sanitary treatment plant effluent as the feedstock and to emphasize the indirect potable reuse/recharge approach (“toilet‑to‑recharge”), not direct potable reuse.
The project team identified remaining schedule risks: federal funding naming in the next continuing-resolution/budget decision and the time required for DDW Title 22 approval. Staff emphasized outreach and transparency—cost breakdowns, safety and monitoring—to address rate concerns and the “ick” factor. The district plans continued monthly funding updates and coordinated public outreach with the sanitation district.
