Sole Source Contracts for Administrative Hearing

Southeast Water Supply Augmentation Project

Presented to:

Orange County Board of County Commissioners

March 18, 2008

Contents

BackgroundSEWSAP Water Use PermitReasons For Administrative HearingRequested Action

Contents

BackgroundSEWSAP Water Use PermitReasons For Administrative HearingRequested Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BackgroundWhy SEWSAP

Identified under IWRP as a feasible alternative water supply (AWS) project – Environmentally, technically and

financially feasibleLocated within the County and near

where shortfalls will first occur Can be implemented by 2010Part of the UKRB

– Required in the WUP4 mgd permitted by SFWMD for Toho

Water Authority in 2005

BackgroundWhy SEWSAP

SJR/TCR Project can not be implemented by 2010– Currently behind schedule to meet

demands after 2013AWS 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

BackgroundSEWSAP Project

7.14 mgdTwo points of withdrawal

– C-29 and C-29A Canals

Lake Hart Lake

Mary Jane

C-29

C-2

9A

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

Contents

BackgroundSEWSAP Water Use PermitReasons For Administrative HearingRequested Action

SEWSAP Water Use Permit

Applied in June 2006Addressed all SFWMD

written commentsSFWMD written comments

stated, “the evaluation provided predicts minimal impacts to the local water bodies”

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

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

Contents

BackgroundSEWSAP Water Use PermitReasons For Administrative HearingRequested Action

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 rulesDenial limits our options for timely

development of new water sources

Contents

BackgroundSEWSAP Water Use PermitReasons For Administrative HearingRequested Action

Requested ActionSole Source Contracts

Hearing scheduled in July Immediate need to contract with legal

representation and expert witnessesTeam familiar with OCU and specific

legal and technical needs of the case

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. - $375,000Y8-816 to PB Americas, Inc. (PB) - $250,000Y8-817 to SDI Environmental Services, Inc. (SDI) - $250,000Y8-818 to Liquid Solutions Group, LLC (LSG) - $90,000Y8-819 to Thomas E. Lodge Ecological Advisors (TELEA) - $75,000