Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recycled Water Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Morro Bay advisory board backs phased testing and drilling after mixed tracer results in recycled-water project
Summary
After an interim tracer test showed rapid initial travel but slower later movement, the Morro Bay Public Works Advisory Board endorsed a phased approach: drill two injection wells, run site-specific injection/tracer tests, then decide whether to equip wells and build pipelines. Staff stressed this reduces the risk of unusable infrastructure and preserves eligibility for state funding.
Morro Bay — The city’s Public Works Advisory Board on May 21 endorsed staff’s recommendation to phase drilling and equipping of injection wells for the Water Reclamation Facility (WARF) recycled‑water project after engineers reported mixed results from a recent tracer test.
Utilities staff and project consultants told the board the interim test at injection well 1 (IW1) — which ran for roughly four months — injected between about 40 and 45 acre‑feet of potable water with a floroscein tracer to measure groundwater travel times. Matt Vanner Lindon of Canon Engineering said, “we injected somewhere between 40 and 45 acre feet” during the November 2024–March 2025 test. The test detected the tracer at nearby monitoring wells within days to weeks but did not detect it at an extraction well north of Morro Creek after more than four months, a result the team described as mixed.
That pattern — early rapid detections near the injection point, then much slower movement beyond that zone — prompted staff to recommend a risk‑reducing strategy: drill two additional candidate injection wells but delay expensive equipping and pipeline work until each new well is tested for site‑specific travel time and injection capacity. ‘‘Drill first, equip later’’ is intended to prevent the city from investing in wells and conveyance that might be unusable if travel times or hydrogeologic connections do not meet regulatory and program targets.
City and consultant presentations laid out the technical and financial context. The Confluence/City quarterly report showed WARF program expenditures to date of about $146 million against a $159 million approved program budget; Confluence reported roughly $300,000 in Q3 expenditures and said total funding compiled for the program is about $195 million, leaving roughly $48 million available to complete remaining work. Dan Himl of Confluence noted the Bureau of Reclamation processed the city’s fully executed Title 16 grant agreement on April 10, unlocking $9.3 million in grant reimbursement for the recycled‑water component.
Canon Engineering presented the conceptual design and cost thumbnails for the recycled‑water facilities, including drilling and equipping injection wells, branch pipelines linking the IPR conveyance line to well heads, and possible reuse at parks and the high school. Canon recommended repurposing part of an existing 12‑inch feed line for roughly 1,600 feet of conveyance where feasible; a hydrostatic test of a section of that line held at 150 psi for two hours. Canon also compared downhole flow‑control valve options and recommended a conventional downcomer/orifice plus wellhead air‑release and modulating valves as a lower‑cost, high‑reliability approach (roughly $20,000 installed per well) instead of expensive electrically actuated downhole valves.
Implementation and funding: staff recommended a staged schedule. The team proposes drilling two new candidate wells, conducting portable‑water injection and tracer tests to verify that the wells meet the minimum travel‑time rules and can deliver the expected injection rates, and only then issuing bids to equip wells and construct connecting pipelines. Staff said the phased approach preserves eligibility for State Revolving Fund and other grants while reducing the risk of building stranded assets.
Board reaction and next steps: members pressed on several technical points — discharge of test water, the meaning of ERT and HVSR geophysics, pressure and surge management on the IPR line, and whether repurposed pipeline sections require cleaning or reinforcement. Consultants and staff replied with technical clarifications and noted the schedule has slipped in part because additional hydrogeologic tests were added to reduce long‑term performance risk.
The board voted in favor of forwarding staff’s recommendations to the City Council for action, and asked staff to include board comments on consultant performance and schedule management in the council packet. Staff said the EIR Addendum No.2 and the implementation recommendations will go to City Council later in June.
