Crescent City adopts final wastewater upgrade report and seeks state funding

Crescent City — The City Council on Oct. 6 adopted a final project report for a major upgrade to the city’s wastewater treatment plant and approved resolutions authorizing the city manager to apply for state financial assistance.

Council members voted unanimously to move the project forward after staff described regulatory pressure from a February 2024 NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit that tightened bacteria limits and left the plant with about $228,000 in violations. The state has given the city a Time Schedule Order (TSO) that provides an initial five‑year compliance window, with an anticipated extension to 10 years.

The project team, led by consultants from Jacobs and plant staff, recommended adding a second membrane bioreactor (MBR) train by repurposing one of the existing secondary clarifier structures, upgrading digestion and dewatering systems, and installing additional filters and attached‑growth treatment to meet the new limits. The preliminary Class 5 cost estimate centers around $57 million with a broad range of roughly $46 million to $86 million depending on design and value‑engineering outcomes. Staff said existing state funding priorities for NPDES violators could make the city eligible for up to $50 million in grant funding.

"We're looking at turning that into a compliance project," the City Manager said during the presentation, describing a plan to roll fines into an implementable project. The manager also urged a fast‑tracked state funding application: "That's where it's important to keep on a fast track right now and try to get that application submitted really as soon as possible."

Presenters noted operational constraints: the plant can meet permit limits during dry weather when roughly 1.0–1.2 million gallons per day flow through the existing MBR, but storm flows commonly double or rise to several million gallons per day — volumes that the older rotating biological contactors (RBCs) cannot reliably treat under the new permit. Adding redundancy and capacity with a second MBR is presented as the most feasible path to compliance while using existing footprints to ease coastal permitting.

Staff described a staged timeline: finish design and environmental work through the end of the decade, pursue construction beginning around 2030, and complete work in the 2030–2035 window, timed against the TSO. The state has already provided roughly $930,000 for initial planning; staff has requested an additional approximately $2 million (including $1.5 million to reach 60% design and to fund required environmental review) to make the project shovel‑ready for larger construction grants.

Council members pressed presenters about tsunami risk and whether relocation of the treatment plant is feasible. Consultants said limited structural hardening is possible, but full protection for an extreme Cascadia tsunami (described in the presentation as a very large event) would likely be cost‑prohibitive and could require an alternative higher site; staff said site‑relocation planning will be part of longer‑term capital planning.

The council approved two resolutions (2025‑47 and 2025‑48) authorizing the city manager to submit a financial assistance application to the State Water Resources Control Board and to reimburse eligible project expenditures, clearing the way to pursue state grant funds and advance the project to 60% design.