The SWIP (Surface Water Improvement Project) is a $68 million project that will reengineer one portion of Bend’s municipal water system.
In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) instituted a requirement that surface water systems serving at least 10,000 filter the water for Cryptosporidium. This ruling requires Bend to either discontinue use of water from Bridge and Tumalo Creeks for municipal purposes or put in place a treatment program by 2014. The treatment program as proposed by the City includes 9.5 miles of piping, a hydroelectric plant, an expensive membrane filtration plant, and a new intake facility costing an estimated 68 million dollars of ratepayer money.
The Bottom Line:
- Is this project necessary? No, the need for treatment of water may be delayed and only testing is required, and at least one of the pipes is still in good enough condition that a Value Engineering Study commissioned by the City suggested continuing to use it in order to save approximately $12 million.
- If a request for delay in water treatment is not granted, is the project necessary? No, the City has well water sources equal to several years of growth and the most extreme anticipated emergency scenario. (See data in Alternatives).
- Is there any advantage to having dual sources of water (well and creek water)? No, well water is more reliable in drought and dry seasons, plus it is not vulnerable to interruptions due to fire.
- Is there any advantage to discontinuing use of the creek water source altogether? Yes, besides saving $68 million, the water rights can be leased instream as Sisters and Redmond have done with their surface water rights for years. The City will retain its water rights.
The City has taken a project meant to address Crypto contamination and expanded it to encompass an expensive, massive revamp of the entire water delivery system. However, Tumalo Creek is just one source of Bend’s water, and the City’s own documents project that in the future, most of Bend’s water will come from wells. So why are we spending $68 million to revamp a creek water system that doesn’t even provide us with additional water?
To find out what Bend’s other, more cost-effective and environmentally sound options for drinking water are, click here.
May 2009: City Posts YouTube Videos Announcing it is Raising Rates to Pay for Surface Water Project
5/26/09 Aging Water Infrastructure
Although the City announces its decision to raise water rates to pay for the surface water system, it has not yet held a single public meeting or hearing to obtain input on the project.
The video does not mention any possible alternatives, such as wells, the short pipe option, or the 1950s pipe option.
Councilor Capell states that the “Federal Government requires us to filter…” without mentioning that the costly filtration requirement does not apply to well systems. Instead, the video gives the impression that Bend has no alternatives and that this is an “unfunded mandate from EPA.”
September 16, 2009: Council votes to proceed with Creek Water Project based on favorable hydropower assumptions
Powerpoint presentation suggests that hydroelectric Creek Water Project is superior due to huge state and federal green subsidies for the hydropower project and hydropower sales.
Councilors Eager, Teator, and Green express concern that if the hydropower assumptions are incorrect, the City needs to instead go with the well alternative so they don’t have what Councilor Eager refers to as “a pipe to nowhere.”
At the time of the vote, City staff have not yet obtained the actual report or spreadsheets that back up the Powerpoint presentation made to Council, nor has even a draft of the report been made public despite numerous pointed requests.
When the City eventually did release the spreadsheets in support of the Powerpoint presentation, it showed that the project cost to the City was only $24 million, not $70 million as now believed. Either there was a mistake or the engineers were counting on nearly $50 million in hydroelectric subsidies at that time, virtually all of which no longer exist.
October 23, 2009: Brown & Caldwell issues comparative analysis.
Scoring for risk and reliability shows that the “short pipe” option is the best, followed by wells, and then the Creek Water Project with hydroelectric.
Creek Water alternative assumes that the City will receive massive hydropower subsidies and grants to pay for the hydro plant and the new pipeline.
Assumes that the hydro project will divert up to three times the water currently used by the City in order to generate more power to sell. The excess water would be disposed of using injection wells. In other words, the report’s financial assumptions required the City to deplete the river solely for hydropower purposes.
No analysis of the value of instream flows which are critical for recreation and fisheries.
Assumed diversion rate of 13.5 mgd throughout the year even though City’s peak season rights would be contrained to only about 7.6 mgd based on prior published City master plan and water conservation plan, and winter water usage is only about 5 mgd. This overstates the cost of running wells, and overstates the hydro revenues.
May 2010: HDR hired to design first phase of surface water system.
The HDR contract with the City contemplates that HDR’s fees for subsequent phases would be between $13 million and $18 million.
August 16, 2010: Memo from Finance Director to Council that Hydroelectric Assumptions are Not Accurate.
Finance Director Sonia Andrews provides Council with memo pointing out that BC’s assumptions concerning the availability of grants and subsidies were wrong, as well as its assumptions concerning revenues from hydropower. She also explains that the project will jeopardize the City’s current bond rating.
August 2010 Councilor Eager aks for Second Look at Wells.
Given the failure of the hydroelectric assumptions previously relied on, Councilor Eager asks staff to put together a memo regarding the relative costs of wells.
October 27, 2010: HDR Issues Memo Comparing Wells and Surface Water Costs.
Inexplicably, staff hired HDR (who it had already hired to design the Creek Water system) to perform the analysis requested by Councilor Eager.
HDR presentation focuses its presentation on cumulative cash flow rather than net present value, meaning that $1 spent in 2060 appears to be of equal value to $1 spent in 2011.
HDR assumes electricity rate increases of 6.22% annually for 50 years.
HDR assumes unrealistic growth rates in water consumption (and corresponding pumping costs).
HDR assumes minimal operations and maintenance for operation of membrane treatment plant.
HDR fails to address peaking charges in its well model
HDR model places wells in absurd locations, thereby adding tens of millions in piping and reservoir costs to the well model.
HDR well model provides 15.1 mgd peak day supply to replace the Creek Water model, which only supplies 7.4 mgd of reliable peak day supply.
October 27 – November 3, 2010: Request to postpone vote so that citizens and ratepayers may schedule a meeting with City Councilors and Staff was denied
Request to postpone vote to allow time for a meeting with various stakeholders to discuss the HDR Memo and lower-cost alternatives to the Creek Water Project recommended by HDR is denied.
November 3, 2010: Council votes 6-1 (Clinton dissenting) to proceed with Creek Water Project in reliance on HDR Report.
December 2010: Council votes 5-2 (Clinton and Teater dissenting) to proceed with Creek Water Project.
Councilor Teater joins Councilor Clinton in voicing concern about the Creek Water project and votes against moving forward with the next step until the Council obtains better information about the well alternative.
Comments are closed.
Petition to Stop the Drain
I wish to state my opposition to the proposed City of Bend's Surface Water Improvement Project (SWIP), which would cost Bend nearly $70 million, reduce flows in Tumalo Creek, and raise rate-payers' bills more than 40% in the near future. I believe this project is misdirected and the process should be reopened for public participation and reassessment of alternatives.
