The Dashboard front page (which also has reports for 2010 and 2011) states that it aims to

“…shine a spotlight on the questions that truly matter to San Diegans: Are we leaving our children a heritage of thriving, rejuvenating nature? Will our businesses have access to resources such as energy and water so they can provide economic opportunities to all of the region’s inhabitants? Do we have efficient and adequate transportation options? Simply, is our quality of life improving?”

As you can see, a variety of relevant topics are addressed in the dashboard. You have the choice of clicking a specific topic from the left-hand sidebar or you can download the entire report as a PDF (clicking the above image will take you to the main Dashboard page).

Each topic is organized into four units, with the headings asking:

1. What is the measure?
2. How are we doing?
3. Why is it important?
4. How can we improve?

In the unit on water, here’s a map from the “How are we doing?” section. The map portrays each water district in the county in shades of green, with dark green indicating the highest water consumption (clicking the image will display the version on the Equinox website).

In addition to the Dashboard reports, the Equinox Center website is well-worth exploring for reports on other research it has conducted. One that is quite revealing is the 2010 report San Diego’s Water Resources: Assessing the Options. It drew quite a bit of attention from community leaders and activists. For my summary of that report please click here.

The Water Reliability Coalition (or WRC), an association of San Diego County environmental, technical, business, and ratepayer organizations formed to perform public outreach in support of Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) research and development announced yesterday the launch of its new website at http://www.sdwatersupply.com/.

When WRC came together in late 2009 as the Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Coalition, the City of San Diego was embarking on its Indirect Potable Reuse Reservoir Augmentation Demonstration Project (IPR/RA Demonstration Project). Lani Lutar (San Diego County Taxpayers Association) and Bruce Reznik (at the time at San Diego Coastkeeper) were instrumental in organizing the coalition. Lutar is still at it, and Gabe Solmer is the new leader from Coastkeeper.

In March 2010 the Coalition received a special recognition award from the California WateReuse Association for its efforts.

The Coalition believes that potable reuse shows great potential as a component of San Diego’s water supply strategy because it represents a steady reliable source of high-quality potable water and has the environmental benefit of reducing the amount of wastewater dumped into the Pacific, among other reasons.

In early 2010 San Diego began to publicize its IPR project as the Water Purification Demonstration Project partly to simplify saying the name and partly to get some distance from lingering impressions caused by negative politics and press during IPR initiatives in 2007 and earlier (the original name is still used for internal documentation and official Council business).

Consequently, the IPR Coalition changed its name to the Water Reliability Coalition in September 2010, partly in response to the City’s project name change and partly because the name echoes sentiment behind a long-time San Diego goal to improve supply reliability by reducing its 80% dependence on water imports. The Coalition then decided to build a website, not an easy task with numerous coalition members with other priorities and economic challenges to deal with. It took a bit longer than they hoped, but it’s here now. It’s good to see it up.

(see also this writeup about the Coalition from Bradley Fikes at the North County Times)

The eastern part of El Monte Valley. El Capitan reservoir and dam are around the bend to the right. The greenery heading down the valley marks the course of the San Diego River. The valley grows considerably wider with distance from the reservoir.

The purification process for potable reuse includes micro-filtration, reverse osmosis, and UV disinfection. San Diego is also developing an IPR project through the Water Purification Demonstration Project at the North City Water Reclamation Plant.

The Helix project has (or had) a lot going for it.

Whereas Helix currently meets 3.3% of its demand for water from local resources, the project would increase that figure to 15%. For all practical purposes, it would create a permanent drought-proof water supply for 15,000 families according to the project’s FAQ — and there would be a corresponding decrease in imported water purchases. Wastewater discharges to the Pacific Ocean would also be reduced.

Another project component would be to mine about 12 million tons of sand from the valley over a 10-year period and sell it to to help fund the project. Much of the sand was deposited by the San Diego River which flows through El Monte Valley west of El Capitan Reservoir. The sand would help ease local shortages of Portland Cement Grade Sand. Upon completion of the mining, the valley would be recontoured and reclamation/restoration plans would be implemented for habitat and recreation purposes.

The staff recommendation to suspend the project (initiated by all four district staff directors and signed off on by General Manager Mark Weston) must have been difficult to decide after the considerable time and resources invested, not the least being preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been underway for more than a year. Still, to put it simply, the project conditions have changed so much that it no longer seems feasible.

The changed project conditions are:

• As a partner in the project, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District would build an advanced water treatment facility to purify water from its reclamation facility. Helix would buy the water to recharge the El Monte Valley aquifer. However, severe budgetary pressures forced Padre to make major cuts in workforce and operating expenses and deferrals of capital improvements. Consequently, Phase I of the advanced treatment facilities was deferred for at least four years.
• Padre would have to charge Helix more for the purified water than originally planned because construction costs for the advanced treatment facility have increased by 30%. Padre might also lose a major subsidy ($250/acre foot) from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) for local recycled water supply projects. MWD is cutting a number of those subsidies in San Diego County in response (some say retaliation) to the lawsuit over MWD’s pricing filed by the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) in June 2010. All told, the price Helix would have to pay has risen from $1200 per acre-foot to about $1850 per acre-foot.
• The cost of completing the EIR is estimated at $500,000 over the original plan because of additional cultural resources studies found to be needed after discussions with the Viejas and Barona Tribes.
• Helix customers have reduced their average usage from 143 to 106 gallons per capita per day. The lower demand is seen as giving Helix more time to consider an alternative to the project. It also means less revenue to cover fixed expenses creating pressure to raise prices.
• There remains litigation over legal and financial issues arising from the failed golf course project that the El Capitan Golf Club, LLC was going to build on a large parcel of El Monte Valley land owned by Helix.

Along with the recommendation to cancel the IPR project is a proposal to pursue Direct Potable Reuse (DPR), presumably with the same output as the IPR project.

R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant

IPR involves blending purified recycled water with raw imported water and aging it for some six months to a year in an aquifer or large reservoir before sending it to a water treatment plant for distribution to customers.

DPR, on the other hand, blends purified recycled water with imported raw water in a surface reservoir with little or no holding time before it is sent to a finishing water treatment plant and on to the customers.

DPR seems plausible to Helix because a large body of scientific research holds that the quality of purified recycled water is “far superior” to the water imported from the Colorado River or Northern California, and more research continues.

So, the recommendation here is that Helix “seek legislative and/or regulatory revisions to allow advanced treated recycled water through direct potable reuse as a supplemental untreated surface water supply.”

(The quoted portion of the last sentence might translate as: “seek legislative and/or regulatory revisions to allow purified recycled water to be blended with imported raw water in Lake Jennings, with the adjacent R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant performing final treatment before distribution to customers.“)

Actually there has been some legislation already. In September 2010 Senate Bill 918 was signed into law. As explained in the 2011 WateReuse Research Foundation report Direct potable reuse: a path forward, SB 918 “…mandates that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) adopt uniform water recycling criteria for indirect potable reuse (IPR) for groundwater recharge by the end of 2013. If an expert panel convened pursuant to the bill finds that the criteria for surface water augmentation would adequately protect public health, the development of criteria for surface water augmentation by the end of 2016 is also mandated in the bill. Further, the bill requires CDPH to investigate the feasibility of developing regulatory criteria for DPR…” (emphasis mine).

The Helix Water District Board of Directors will meet at 3:00pm Wednesday, September 7 at 7811 University Avenue in La Mesa.

[Update Sep 7 -- the Board indeed voted to suspend the project: Helix news release]

Prepping the dam's face with water blasting to ensure a good surface for the new concrete (photo taken March 2010).

It has been two years since groundbreaking for the San Vicente Dam Raise Project took place, but the dam is still at its original height.

Everything is going according to plan, though, and right on schedule.

All this time has been devoted to prepping the dam and foundation, setting up the quarry where the ingredients for the concrete will be mined, constructing a new access road to the future new marina, and building a small “saddle dam” (because the eventual higher water level will reach a saddle-shaped depression in the hills on the reservoir’s west side).

San Vicente Dam is currently 220 feet tall and when completed, will be 117 feet taller, increasing the reservoir’s capacity from 90,000 acre-feet to 242,000 acre-feet. Although the larger capacity is billed as being enough to supply 300,000 households, the expansion is not really to accommodate additional customers from growth and development as might be implied by that statement.

Because around 80% of San Diego’s water must be imported it could be disastrous if something happened to cut off that supply. Our water managers take that risk very seriously. The real point of expanding the reservoir, therefore, is to have more water stored locally for use if something (like an earthquake) breaks the imported water infrastructure and repairs take months to complete. A secondary reason is to provide carryover storage to be used during extra dry years.

Reservoir level drawn down during construction. Large cleared area on left is site of quarry mining operations (photo from August 2010).

While the City of San Diego owns and operates San Vicente Dam and reservoir, the dam raise project is actually being managed and paid for by the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) which will also own the rights to the additional water. The dam raise is one of several projects SDCWA is doing as part of its countywide Emergency Storage Project.

Work on the saddle dam was recently halted halfway at about the 20 foot mark (again, as planned) because the conveyor system that will deliver concrete from the quarry and concrete mixing operation to the big dam needs to go through that space. The conveyor will cross right over the top of the half-finished saddle dam. After the main dam raise is completed, the conveyor will be dismantled and work on the saddle dam will resume to bring it up to its full height.

Since the precisely formulated concrete will be delivered by conveyor instead of trucks it will minimize contamination from soil and other material. By mining the aggregate for the concrete from the hills next to the reservoir and producing the concrete on site instead of another location, residents living in the vicinity will be spared the dust, noise, and traffic impact that thousands of truck trips would otherwise cause.

Concrete will not be made and poured into forms the traditional way; rather, a technique known as “roller compacted concrete” (RCC) will be used. SDCWA already used this method to build the Olivenhain Dam in northern San Diego County. As explained in the above-linked story about Olivenhain, “Roller-compacted concrete is similar to traditional concrete, but is less expensive, requires less water and is much thicker when placed…Roller-compacted concrete is placed in layers. The layers are compacted with rollers similar to those used in road building. Interruption of work must be minimised to facilitate bonding of the layers. Therefore, crews worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week during a 10-12 month period to construct the dam.”

Similarly, once concrete placement begins at San Vicente Dam (probably in mid-September), work will be non-stop 24/7 until the dam is finished. The dam will rise at the rate of about one foot per day. When I asked about viewing opportunities to see the dam as it goes up, SDCWA Senior Public Affairs Representative Gina Molise told me there’s a possibility that they’ll set up a camera overlooking the job to capture time-lapse images. However, that’s only a possibility at this time.

The project schedule and more information can be found at SDCWA’s project web page.

A few weeks ago SDCWA invited the news media to a photo opportunity of work underway on the saddle dam. I was invited too :-) so I get to share some photos. Click images for enlargements (it makes a big difference with some of them).

About half of the dam can be seen in this view from a nearby hillside.

The view at the entry gate.

A portion of the improved access road to the marina. It is less steep and windy than the old road.

The main dam is behind us to the right. The old marina is still there; the new marina will be higher where the mining operation is.

Overview of the mining and mixing operations

Saddle dam at about half-height. Marina access road in background. Mining operation and reservoir to the right.

Spreading, vibrating, rolling, compacting.

Dumping a load for a new one-foot thick layer.

Spreading and leveling.

News crews taking in the action.

Table display showing what goes into the mix. Prior to starting the saddle dam, a trial segment was produced and core samples taken for strength testing. That's a core sample on the table.

Oops, didn't aim camera to capture the label. It says "RCC Aggregate, Group 4, concrete sand."

The face of San Vicente Dam. Conveyor will deliver concrete from top left into the flexible tube running down to the bottom.

In some areas the contractor excavated deep into the adjoining hillside to reach competent rock for the new foundation. In these locations, the contractor built concrete shaping blocks to restore the contours of the excavated slopes. The dam has an intake tower for normal withdrawals but the blue pipe was installed to allow additional water to be withdrawn if necessary.

Worker doing some final touch-up water blasting on the dam's face...

...and the same worker from a distance. Click this for the enlargement...it gives a good feel for the already huge dam. Try to imagine another 117 feet higher.

The reservoir will be a little closer to this residence when the dam raise is completed.

Chris decided about a year ago to embark on a project to tell a history of the Imperial Valley and the formation of the Salton Sea in pictures.

This educational and visually stimulating show is another phase in Chris’s ongoing effort. She has travelled to conduct interviews, do research, take photographs, write, edit, get input from members of the Imperial Irrigation District, the IV Cooperative Extension Service, the Salton Sea Authority, and more.

In addition to being of interest to the community that regularly follows California water issues, the show is likely to be useful for others like college professors teaching water resources engineering and other such courses. There’s a good bibliography of resources at the end, too.

Be sure to visit her Maven’s Manor blog that contains a variety of articles and slideshows on California’s Water and other topics, and her Maven’s Photoblog which is filled with wonderful pictures and stories.

I’m embedding Chris’s slideshow below with her permission; I encourage you to switch to full-screen for best effect.

A proposal to build a turnout on the All-American Canal in order to convey some of Mexico’s Colorado River water to Mexicali, Tecate, Ensenada, and Tijuana during an emergency (like another catastrophic earthquake) disrupting the existing delivery system is being considered through the Colorado River Binational Discussions process — an ongoing series of discussions between Mexican and U.S. agencies working on Colorado River water supply and water management issues

[This account is based on a briefing on the Mexico-U.S. Binational Discussions given at the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) Imported Water Committee meeting last Thursday, July 28 [agenda packet]. Colorado River Program Director Halla Razak delivered the update.]

_____________________________________________________

East of El Centro. The newly-lined All-American Canal is wide, deep, and swiftly flowing.

All-American Canal

The Colorado River is the main source of water for the state of Baja California. After the river enters Mexico, an aqueduct starting in Mexicali brings water west for Tijuana and other locales.

In the aftermath of the 2010 Baja California earthquake, the aqueduct and other canals were damaged, and for a time Tijuana was in a vulnerable position. Later, looking for ways to avoid dependence solely on the single aqueduct, Mexico expressed interest in using the All-American Canal to convey some Colorado River water to Mexico during emergencies so as to provide an extra margin of supply reliability.

The idea was presented at the Colorado River Binational Discussions and a workgroup was set up to work out a plan. Members of the workgroup are:

• San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)
• Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA)
• Central Arizona Project (CAP)
• Various Mexican government agencies

For the next year or so the workgroup will work on design, permitting, and funding. It will also work with the International Boundary and Water Commission (which oversees the 1944 treaty with Mexico regarding water deliveries between the two countries) to determine terms and conditions for implementing the project, and the Bureau of Reclamation which coordinates the Colorado River Basin States’ input to the negotiations.

Ms. Razak indicated that the workgroup is looking at a connection with 200 CFS capacity beginning at the western end of the All-American Canal, near the turnout for the Westside Main Canal.

If all goes well, it is hoped that construction could be completed in early 2014.

Although the City of San Diego isn’t a member of the workgroup, it will have some say in the project because it owns a portion of the capacity rights in the All-American Canal. That’s another story in itself — here’s a fact sheet explaining it. San Diego shoulders some expense in maintaining those capacity rights and will be looking for an agreeable financial outcome should this project be implemented.

Background

The April 2010 Baja California earthquake, as many of us are aware, devastated Mexico’s water infrastructure in the region. An Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) newsletter said an estimated 300 km of canals were knocked out of service [link]. Details on the effects of the earthquake are documented in this EERI Reconnaissance Report.

What was the fate of the water heading toward the unusable canals? Would it just be diverted out to sea?

That brings us back to the Colorado River Binational Process. In normal times they work on long-term strategic issues but during the last year their main focus has been dealing with the impacts of the earthquake. The All-American Canal project was an idea that came recently, relatively speaking. An earlier development was a U.S. suggestion that Mexico be permitted to temporarily store up to 200,000 acre feet in Lake Mead, as summarized in this Colorado River Board report:

“…with the large magnitude earthquake that occurred in the Mexicali Valley in early April, water deliveries from a large number of the canals in the Mexicali Valley have been disrupted. To assist Mexico in coping with this situation, the United States has suggested that, in the interest of international comity and as a one-time program, Mexico would be allowed to store up to 200,000 acre-feet of water in the reservoir system in the United States this year and then be allowed to request the delivery of the stored water during calendar year 2011. [...] Mexico has considered this offer made by the United States and is proposing that this offer by the United States be incorporated into a more comprehensive deal that includes the concepts that are currently being discussed by the two countries to pursue Bi-National projects that could benefit both countries.”

As things turned out, however, the temporary storage wasn’t much needed. According to Mark Watton, Chair of the Imported Water Committee, Mexico has been slow to take advantage of that offer because the farmers, not wanting to wait for canal repairs, began digging their own diversion ditches and were able to irrigate their crops.

Mr. Watton observed that wasn’t the first time Mexican farmers were able to wrangle some extra water. He said a number of years ago (mid 90s?) the Colorado River had surplus water and about 3 million acre feet (MAF) went to Mexico that year (the U.S. treaty obligation to Mexico is 1.5 MAF). Despite doubling the usual volume of water entering Mexico, Watton recalled, not a single drop made it to the Gulf. Why? The upstream farmers captured and used all the extra water.

A short video documenting damaged and then repaired canals and other water conveyance work was also played for the committee. San Diego County Water Authority kindly gave me a copy with permission to post it here (I added the credits at the beginning).

Stormwater generated from our urban and suburban environment is a great challenge in many respects, but as observed in a report by the National Research Council, nearly all stormwater problems result from the loss of water-retaining and evapotranspirating functions of the soil and vegetation in the urban landscape:

“In an undeveloped area, rainfall typically infiltrates into the ground surface or is evapotranspirated by vegetation. In the urban landscape, these processes of evapotranspiration and water retention in the soil are diminished, such that stormwater flows rapidly across the land surface and arrives at the stream channel in short, concentrated bursts of high discharge. This transformation of the hydrologic regime is a wholesale reorganization of the processes of runoff generation, and it occurs throughout the developed landscape. When combined with the introduction of pollutant sources that accompany urbanization (such as lawns, motor vehicles, domesticated animals, and industries), these changes in hydrology have led to water quality and habitat degradation in virtually all urban streams.” (page 5 from the book)

Stormwater rapidly funneled from upstream developed areas has an impact on Mission Valley which itself has become a tangle of roads, malls, and parking lots

Historically our urban stormwater management has been mostly about getting rainwater away from roads, buildings, parking lots, and other impermeable surfaces into creeks, pipes, and channels as quickly as possible.

Broader environmental impacts have not been not ignored but as a pragmatic budget-minded operation the City’s ability to address every issue has been tested as it develops its stormwater management plan. Whether the City can find more ways to control flooding but also to slow things down and allow more water to be naturally and usefully retained rather than discard it as quickly as possible remains to be seen.

The final meeting in the series of public forums on the City’s Master Storm Water System Maintenance Program was held yesterday evening at the Mission Trails Regional Park Visitors Center. The forum consisted of a joint presentation by Jill Witkowski, Staff Attorney for San Diego Coastkeeper, and Bill Harris, Supervising Public Information Officer for the Transportation & Storm Water Department, each offering a slightly different perspective on the program.

(for an MSM look at the program see Mike Lee’s Union-Tribune report. See also this San Diego 6 overview)

The underlying goal, which everyone seemed to agree on, is for the City to get away from a short-term reactionary mode where flooding problems arise, ad-hoc projects are quickly drawn up, emergency permits arranged, and different things happen depending on who is in charge that particular year. Instead, the desired strategy is a twenty-year program that locks in an orderly process that generates perhaps 3-5 projects per year, is not disrupted by management and staff turnover, and incorporates the needs and interests of the community.

The challenge is to find a balance between long-term strategic objectives and site-specific project details.

Originally, a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared last year but a Recirculated PEIR had to be written because of a Coastkeeper legal appeal and additional information that developed after public review of the original PEIR.

Coastkeeper's Jill Witkowski and Stormwater's Bill Harris share the podium

After the presenters gave their overview and discussion with the audience ensued, one topic dominated: adequate, meaningful public participation in the future when specific project details would be developed.

In particular, Coastkeeper’s Witkowski pointed out that significant and meaningful public participation requirements have not been written into the document plan even though verbal pledges have been made to that effect. It’s not enough just to guarantee public access to information about upcoming projects, she said, but a process for responding to public feedback on those projects must also be documented.

Bill Harris acknowledged the plan needs to incorporate such language and asked for patience saying that the issue definitely needs attention and language will be written in. As the meeting continued, some individuals expressed lingering uncertainty about that documentation happening, while Harris expressed equal certainty that those desired changes will be made.

Seeing these people interact in the same room my sense was that the members of San Diego Coastkeeper and staff in the Stormwater Department are smart people who have engaged in sincere and constructive dialog with a great deal of mutual respect. I was a little startled to see a Coastkeeper publicity blurb suggesting the plan was designed “to avoid public input and prohibit neighbors from challenging projects” but I heard nothing quite that strong at the meeting. Indeed, Witkowski praised the overall plan and said it represented “a great step forward.”

After the comment period closes, it will take 4-6 weeks to read, digest, and write responses to the comments. The hope is then to place it on the City Council docket, perhaps at their October 25 meeting.

There’s not much time left for public comment. July 29 is the deadline for comments to be accepted for review and response. Comments must focus on the new issues in the Recirculated PEIR; no reponses will be made to issues from the original PEIR.

Even if you’re strongly interested in stormwater issues, it might be daunting to read the entire Recirculated PEIR and figure out where you might contribute worthwhile comments. You may not find time for all the apendixes, but perhaps scan the report and read through the responses to the original PEIR comments. Also, if you’re up for some nitty gritty, read on for extra perspective from both sides.

A San Diego Coastkeeper handout at the meeting outlined its view of the situation:

July 29, 2011: Last day to comment on “Program Environmental Impact Report” 1300 pages, 45 day comment period.

Fall 2011: City Council hearing to approve environmental documents and “Master” site development permit for 115 creeks and channels.

If approved, annual process:

• City Stormwater staff develops “list” of channels for upcoming year. Presents list and previous year’s report to community planning groups and to City Council’s Natural Resources & Culture Committee
• City Stormwater staff prepares individual maintenance plans. Hydrology, water quality, noise, historical, mitigation
• City Stormwater staff sends detailed plans to City Development Services Department for approval
• Development Services uses Substantial Conformance Review checklist to determine if new, greater impacts in environmental review for program

If no and NOT in Coastal Zone, then Process One = DSD approval. “Courtesy” public notice to community planning group in area; no public comment period, no hearing, no appeal process.

If no, but in Coastal Zone, then Process Two = DSD approval. Notice of future decision to community planning group and residents within 300 feet; DSD decision made within 11 days of mailing notice (can extend to 30 days if CPC requests extension before decision is made); Notice of decision to people who request it no later than 2 days after decision date; residents/CPC can appeal to Planning Commission if appeal within 12 days after decision.

If greater/new environmental impacts, then Process Four = Planning Commission Hearing. Notice of application to CPC and residents within 300 feet plus those who request notice; Planning Commission hearing where public can weigh in on the projects; Appeal to City Council within 10 days of Planning Commission decision.

The City’s draft PEIR has this take on the situation:

“Although the Master Program has been amended to require hydrology and hydraulic studies be completed for each of the individual storm water facilities at the time maintenance is proposed, some of the members of the public are expected to insist that hydrology and hydraulic studies be completed for all of the storm water facilities before adoption of the Master Program. In addition, members of the public are expected to insist that detailed maintenance plans be identified prior to approval of the Master Program and PEIR to assure that the impacts are adequately anticipated.”

In response to concerns expressed regarding maintenance in open space, the City’s Storm Water Division (SWD) removed many of the storm water facilities within open space where maintenance was not likely to be required. As a result, the number of miles of storm water facilities included in the Master Program was reduced from 50 to 32 miles. In addition, SWD has determined that the estimates of disturbance width in the original PEIR was over conservative. With the reduction in the number of storm water facilities combined with the reduced disturbance width assumptions, the impact to wetlands within the City’s jurisdiction would be reduced by approximately 43 percent (30 acres) when compared to the original Master Program. Nevertheless, some members of the public are expected to request further reductions in the number of facilities to be maintained under the Master Program.

Concerns are likely to continue to be expressed regarding alternatives to the proposed maintenance. Although the City’s DSD staff believe that a reasonable range of alternatives is presented in this PEIR, members of the public are expected to contend that other alternatives exist to the proposed project.

Water quality is also expected to continue to be a concern of the public. Although the water quality discussion has been expanded in the PEIR, members of the public are expected to take the position that the water quality impacts are understated and that additional mitigation should be proposed.

In addition, the public has expressed a desire to have more involvement in reviewing annual maintenance proposals which are required as part of the Master Program. In meeting with these individuals and groups, the City has cited specific CEQA statues and guidelines and San Diego Municipal Code regulations to support their determination that annual maintenance activities that are explicitly identified in the Master Program and adequately addressed in the Final PEIR can be approved in reliance upon the certified Final PEIR. As described in Subchapter 1.6 of this PEIR, pursuant to Section 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the certified Final PEIR would satisfy CEQA requirements for subsequent maintenance activities if no new effects could occur, no new mitigation measures would be required, and all feasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the PEIR will be implemented. Despite the legal grounds for maintaining that no new environmental document is required for annual maintenance plans covered within the scope of the Master Program and adequately described by the PEIR, members of the public are expected to push for such review regardless of the provisions of CEQA.”

Here’s Project Chief Wes Danskin discussing the program with San Diego KGTV Channel 10 reporter Joe Little (apologies for the less-than-perfect camera work):

Also, here’s Joe Little’s report on 10 News.