1 / 23

Sole Source Contracts for Administrative Hearing Southeast Water Supply Augmentation Project

Sole Source Contracts for Administrative Hearing Southeast Water Supply Augmentation Project. Presented to: Orange County Board of County Commissioners March 18, 2008. Contents. Background SEWSAP Water Use Permit Reasons For Administrative Hearing Requested Action. Contents. Background

moorejoseph
Download Presentation

Sole Source Contracts for Administrative Hearing Southeast Water Supply Augmentation Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sole Source Contracts for Administrative HearingSoutheast Water Supply Augmentation Project Presented to: Orange County Board of County Commissioners March 18, 2008

  2. Contents • Background • SEWSAP Water Use Permit • Reasons For Administrative Hearing • Requested Action

  3. Contents • Background • SEWSAP Water Use Permit • Reasons For Administrative Hearing • Requested Action

  4. BackgroundOCU Groundwater Permits SJRWMD CUP in 2006 and SFWMD WUP in 2007 Allocation to meet projected demands through 2013 Additional demands after 2013 to be met by other sources 10 mgd from SJR/TCR Project by 2013 Additional 10 mgd from UKRB by 2014 Maximize use of all available reclaimed water and conservation measures

  5. BackgroundOCU Groundwater Permits To maximize the use of reclaimed water and meet our demands OCU must develop a water source by 2010 To supplement reclaimed water To meet permit conditions To meet future demands

  6. BackgroundAlternative Water Supplies • Surface water from the SJR and the UKRB • Identified by the Districts’ in their Water Supply Plans • Required in our CUP/WUP • Currently being pursued through different projects by Utilities in the region

  7. BackgroundAlternative Water Supplies • Desalination • Can not be implemented in time to meet demands at 2010 and after 2013 • Requires approximately 50 miles of pipeline • Challenges • Concentrate disposal • Energy intensive • Costly

  8. BackgroundAlternative Water Supplies • Treatment Cost Comparison • Groundwater • Approx. $1.00 per 1000 gallons • Surface Water • Approx. $3.00 per 1000 gallons • Desalination • Approx. $6.00 per 1000 gallons • Costs do not include transmission and land acquisition

  9. BackgroundAlternative Water Supplies • Surface water projects from SJR and UKRB being pursued by OCU • SJR/TCR Water Supply Project • Partnership with 5 Utilities and 2 WMDs • Agreement approved by BCC in 2005 • SEWSAP • Pursued by OCU in 2006 to meet reclaimed water needs in 2010

  10. BackgroundAlternative Water Supplies • AWS Project Near SR46 • Seminole County • Partnership with 6 Utilities and SJRWMD • UKRB Water Supply Project • Partnership with 5 Utilities and 2 WMDs

  11. BackgroundWhy SEWSAP • Identified under IWRP as a feasible alternative water supply (AWS) project • Environmentally, technically and financially feasible • Located within the County and near where shortfalls will first occur • Can be implemented by 2010 • Part of the UKRB • Required in the WUP • 4 mgd permitted by SFWMD for Toho Water Authority in 2005

  12. BackgroundWhy SEWSAP • SJR/TCR Project can not be implemented by 2010 • Currently behind schedule to meet demands after 2013 • AWS Project Near SR 46 and the UKRB Water Supply Project are in partnering phase • Other potential sources in Orange County will not allow OCU to meet demands at 2010 and current permit conditions

  13. BackgroundSEWSAP Project • 7.14 mgd • Two points of withdrawal • C-29 and C-29A Canals Lake Hart C-29 Lake Mary Jane C-29A

  14. BackgroundSEWSAP Project • Intakes in the vicinity of Lake Hart and Lake Mary Jane • SFWMD determines lake elevations and operates control structures • OCU is not requesting modifications to the operation schedules • Water to be pumped from the canals only when available

  15. Contents • Background • SEWSAP Water Use Permit • Reasons For Administrative Hearing • Requested Action

  16. SEWSAP Water Use Permit Applied in June 2006 Addressed all SFWMD written comments SFWMD written comments stated, “the evaluation provided predicts minimal impacts to the local water bodies”

  17. SEWSAP Water Use Permit City of St. Cloud also applied for WUP in May 2006 5 mgd East Lake Toho Part of the UKRB Reclaimed Water Augmentation Most recent SFWMD models indicate enough water in the UKRB to meet OCU and St. Cloud requests

  18. SEWSAP Water Use Permit December 2007 SFWMD denied OCU and St. Cloud permit requests SFWMD decision contradicts their position when they issued WUPs in 2007 requiring OCU and St. Cloud to develop UKRB OCU and St. Cloud filed petitions for administrative hearing in December 2007

  19. Contents • Background • SEWSAP Water Use Permit • Reasons For Administrative Hearing • Requested Action

  20. Reasons For Administrative Hearing • Need source of water to meet demand in 2010 • Project is environmentally, technically and financially feasible • Project is within the SFWMD rules • Denial limits our options for timely development of new water sources

  21. Contents • Background • SEWSAP Water Use Permit • Reasons For Administrative Hearing • Requested Action

  22. Requested ActionSole Source Contracts • Hearing scheduled in July • Immediate need to contract with legal representation and expert witnesses • Team familiar with OCU and specific legal and technical needs of the case

  23. Requested Action Approval to award five (5) sole source contracts to assist the County in the formal administrative hearing Orange County v. South Florida Water Management District. The five (5) contracts are: • Y8-1055 to Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. - $375,000 • Y8-816 to PB Americas, Inc. (PB) - $250,000 • Y8-817 to SDI Environmental Services, Inc. (SDI) - $250,000 • Y8-818 to Liquid Solutions Group, LLC (LSG) - $90,000 • Y8-819 to Thomas E. Lodge Ecological Advisors (TELEA) - $75,000

More Related