No. The source of the water is the same aquifer. Once the new well was outfitted and placed into service the residents closer to the well would be receiving groundwater from the new well instead of the current one.
Show All Answers
After checking with Operations staff, the recent maintenance work at Well 4 required draining the well column, so they had to flush the well and take a water sample to confirm it was still clean before putting the well back in service. This discharged a lot of water to the street but was a one-time event.
Yes. We are looking at other sites. The golf course has many existing wells that limit the possible location for this new well. The previous studies limited the analysis to in-town and have since expanded to the former Fort Ord. The further distance to the new well site will require a longer transmission pipe and increased project costs. Final recommendations will not be made to City Council until all the sites have been reviewed.
Efforts will be made to reduce impacts as much as possible. Sound barriers that would muffle the sound would be required for work near residences. Notice will be provided to residents If night work is required. Final mitigations and controls would be worked out once a site is selected. Keep in mind that the long-term benefit ( a reliable water supply) outweighs the short-term impacts.
Yes. Community input is being received during this presentation. Additional opportunities will be provided when the Council is asked to review the location for the construction of the test well. Prior to the well being drilled, there will be a CEQA initial study which will allow an additional opportunity for the public to comment.
The well at this site has been inactive for at least 15 years and is installed in a very shallow part of the aquifer (south of the Ord Terrace fault). If this well was demolished and a new well was constructed in its place it would probably not meet the target production rate and an additional well would need to be constructed to meet the peak day water demands.
No. The SMWS has water storage tanks behind Mescal Street. If the site is not collocated with well #4 then a small storage tank with a few hundred gallons of sodium hypochlorite will be stored in the well house for injection into the drinking water system. Sodium hypochlorite is bleach, a common disinfectant used at very low dosages to prevent bacterial growth in water distribution pipes.
The criteria were listed in the presentation slides. The main hydrogeological criteria include being in the deepest part of the Santa Margarita formation and close to the SMWS to reduce connection distances and increased costs.
Well #4 was drilled in January 2001 so it is 21 years old.
Yes. The well is required by state law which requires a secondary water source which SMWS currently does not have. The primary purpose of the well is to serve the existing customers.
Condemning a property through eminent domain would be the last resort. Using eminent domain still requires purchasing the subject property, so finding a site with a willing seller is always preferred.
The well will have an electric motor located inside the building which reduces the sound level outside the building.
Collocating a well by the current well #4 would limit the operational flexibility. Two wells at a single site would be operated singly (one at a time). It is preferred that the wells be 1,000 feet apart so they can run concurrently if needed.
School property is not owned by the City and would require the City to negotiate an easement with the School District for its use.
The fenced yard could be as small as 50x50 feet. The structure itself would be about the size of a one-car garage at 20X20 feet and about 18 feet tall.
Once a site is selected it will take approximately a month to install and approximately a month to test the well. After testing the well is capped and locked until the rest of the equipment is installed.
The presentation was recorded and is available on the City’s YouTube page and SMWS webpage.
The system has just under 800 connections, mostly single-family residences.
Water samples are collected periodically at the well, the water storage tanks, and at various locations within the distribution system. The most frequent testing is for chlorine presence and bacteria absence. Testing for other contaminants occurs at set intervals.
The wells used for aquifer storage and recovery don’t have sound enclosures, so you can hear those motors when they are running. They are not located next to residences, so there is less concern about their noise levels. Those sites have security lighting to discourage vandalism. Well sites in town have lights on motion detectors.