Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seaside officials flag $12 million price tag for a backup well as city studies water‑rate options
Summary
Council received a detailed briefing on the Seaside municipal water system: one active city well, an artesian 'Chile’s' well with only limited current yield, recycled‑water credits, and estimates that a new deep well could cost roughly $12 million — a cost staff said rates alone are unlikely to shoulder.
Seaside — The City of Seaside spent the largest portion of Thursday’s council meeting on a deep dive into the city’s water supply, where staff said one working municipal well and expensive construction costs for a reliable backup create a multimillion‑dollar policy choice for residents and elected leaders.
Assistant Public Works Director Andreas Bear told the council that the city currently operates a single active municipal well (Well 4), producing about 500 gallons per minute, and relies on an intertie with neighboring CalAm for redundancy. Bear said the city acquired a small artesian source on the “Chile’s” property in 2022; that artesian well flows about five gallons per minute at the surface without a pump and would yield only about six acre‑feet per year in its current, untreated state. Hydrogeologic modeling, Bear added, indicates the well could potentially produce 14–50 gallons per minute if fitted with a pump and treatment, but that would require capital improvements.
Bear said the most realistic path to long‑term redundancy is a new deep production well located north of the Terrace Fault in the Santa Margarita strata. Using recent local construction comparables supplied by CalAm, staff estimated that drilled deep wells in the area have cost roughly $12 million each for construction alone — a figure that does not include downstream piping, treatment or distribution upgrades. “Rates alone are unlikely to support the cost of a $12 million well,” Bear said.
City staff described alternatives under study: pursuing federal and state grant funding, partnering with regional water entities, further developing recycled‑water credits tied to the golf course, and phasing investments rather than a single large contract. Bear told the council the city is carrying about $2.5 million in the water account now and has approximately 121 acre‑feet per year in adjudicated allocation plus roughly 70 acre‑feet available via recycled‑water arrangements.
Councilmembers asked for greater detail on operational projections and units. Council Member Miller pressed staff on converting gallons‑per‑minute numbers into acre‑feet per year and on the difference between the artesian flow now and modeled pumped capacity. Bear and the city manager said staff would provide a written briefing translating flow rates to annual volumes and cost scenarios for council consideration.
Public comment reflected both technical and equity concerns: speakers urged transparent timelines for securing backup supply, asked whether recycled water and regional partnerships could be pursued more aggressively, and urged community meetings when draft rate changes or funding mechanisms are considered.
What’s next: staff said the formal rate study remains on hold pending decisions about the new‑well strategy and expected to complete a draft study within one to two months once capital cost assumptions are set. Council directed staff to pursue feasibility work, surface grant opportunities, and report back with cost‑scenario options before any Prop 218 notice or formal rate adoption process.
