Increased operating costs due to water turbidity

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1044-DR
ApplicantCity of Redlands Alternative Water Supply
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#071-59962
PW ID#26602
Date Signed1997-06-13T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; City of Redlands Alternative Water Supply

Cross-Reference: Emergency Protective Measures, Utilities Operating Costs

Summary: Floods of early 1995 caused high levels of turbidity in the Santa Ana River, which is the primary drinking water source for the City. The City switched to its existing alternative drinking water source, groundwater wells. The increased operation costs were deemed ineligible. In the second appeal, the City claimed that action taken was a cost-effective effort to avoid damages to its treatment system and requested funding for $25,137. The State supports the appeal concurring that there was an immediate threat to life and property resulting from a major disaster.

Issues:
  1. Are costs for using the groundwater supply eligible?
  2. Was there a potential for damages to the water treatment plant?
  3. Was there an immediate threat to public health?
Findings:
  1. No. The NPDWR require that the water supply have sufficient quantity and quality. Therefore, City routinely uses the groundwater to supplement its supply from the Santa Ana River.
  2. No. The information provided supports only that there was the potential for increasing maintenance costs, especially on filters and pumps.
  3. No. The effect on water quality may have been increased turbidity. However, turbidity is not a health-based or primary drinking water criteria and, therefore, was not a threat to public health.
Rationale:FEMA does not fund additional operating costs to utilities resulting from a disaster. By using the groundwater supply, the City may have been reducing maintenance costs, but was not eliminating an immediate threat or averting damages to the treatment facility

Appeal Letter

June 13, 1997

Mr. Richard Ray
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, CA 95823-9013

Dear Mr. Ray:

This letter is in response to your December 23, 1996, submittal of the City of Redland's second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 26602 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. This DSR documented costs associated with supply of an alternative water supply and was subsequently denied.

We recognize that by using an alternate water supply the City avoided higher maintenance costs. However, by using the groundwater supply, the subgrantee incurred increased costs related to operating the water treatment system, rather than incurring costs to eliminate an immediate threat or avoid damages to the facility. As explained in the enclosed analysis, the increased costs for the alternate water supply are not eligible since they were an increase in operating cost of the water utility. Further, because the subgrantee uses the groundwater supply periodically throughout the year to provide potable water to the community, its use during the disaster did not eliminate an immediate threat to the water treatment plant. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
During the January and February floods of 1995, high turbidity levels in the Santa Ana River caused the City to use groundwater supply wells as the sole source of water for the community. The operation and maintenance costs for the groundwater supply wells are greater than the gravity fed supply of water from the Santa Ana River, which is normally used as the source of water. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 26602 was written on February 16, 1995, for the additional pumping/electricity and other maintenance costs of $25,137. After review, the DSR was determined to be ineligible, since the costs to the City were an increase in the cost to provide a utility service, and no immediate threat was established.

First Appeal
In the first appeal dated December 14, 1995, the City contended that the costs of $25,137 were incurred as emergency protective measures since an alternative water supply was used to protect human health. Further the treatment of the highly turbid river water may have damaged the water treatment facility. The first appeal was denied by an August 19, 1996, because FEMA would not fund the replacement of water inventories lost as a result of the disaster, no immediate threat was found, and the City uses the groundwater during times other than disasters. With respect to the threat to the public from a lack of potable water, the first appeal response indicated that alternative drinking water sources are used at other times when the primary source of water is not available. Therefore, there was no immediate threat to the public. In addition, the response stated that the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) require public water suppliers to supply water in sufficient quantity, quality, and pressure to meet public health regulations, at all times. Thus the use of the groundwater source during the event is consistent with the routine use of groundwater to meet the requirements of the NPDWR, when the normal supply is inadequate.

Second Appeal
In the second appeal, dated October 28, 1996, the City maintained that the continued use of the primary water source would have allowed "a build up of untreated water" which would have posed an immediate threat of significant damage to improved public property. Further, the City claimed that the continued use and treatment of the primary water source would have resulted in millions of dollars in expense in the construction of a detention basin, consequently, the use of the wells as a water source was cost effective. The City maintained that it is eligible for funding for the costs incurred to eliminate the threat of damage to the water treatment plant. The City contended that damages to the pumps and filters from highly turbid water would have occurred had the City continued to pump its supply water from the Santa Ana River, the main water supply source.

DISCUSSION
In its second appeal, the City maintained that it had no choice other than to use an alternative water supply. This claim is misleading since the groundwater supply is an integral part of its water supply both during summer months and periodically throughout the year. Thus, it was not an alternative supply used uniquely for the disaster. It is recognized that there were increased operational costs, mostly electrical costs. However, it appears that these costs were more consistent with higher operating costs, similar to those that the City experiences when the alternate source is used throughout the year. This is contrary to the claim that these operating costs were incurred to avoid damages to the treatment facility. Per FEMA policy, increases in operating expenses incurred by utilities as a result of a disaster are not eligible.

The City also maintained that the use of the groundwater supply averted the damage to improved public property. However, no immediate threat of significant damage to improved public property is apparent. FEMA regulation 44 CFR 206.225(a)(3), Emergency work, states that in order to be eligible, emergency protective measures must:
  1. eliminate or lessen an immediate threat to lives, public health, or safety; or
  2. eliminate or lessen immediate threats of significant additional damage to improved public or private property through measures which cost effective.
There is no discussion as to how public health was protected by the action. The NPDWR requires the water supply to meet specific criteria, as stated above. However, turbidity is not an enforceable standard of the NPDWR. In order to meet the NPDWR requirements, the City operates and maintains the groundwater supply system throughout the year, as needed.

The City contended that potential damages could have occurred to the pumps and filters of the treatment facility had the turbid river water been used. No documentation has been provided supporting a history of damage or concerning the likelihood of damages to the treatment facility. The City also claimed that continued use of the surface water would necessitate the construction of additional detention basins costing millions of dollars. Again, the City does not provide substantiating information for both the need for and the cost of such an endeavor. The effects of high turbidity would appear to be greater maintenance costs, rather than costs due to damage.

CONCLUSION
The groundwater source is an integral part of the water supply system, which is used, as necessary, throughout the year to provide a continuous water supply, and to meet the needs of the community and to comply with Federal drinking water regulations. The appeal does not substantiate that an immediate threat occurred to either public health or public property. All costs incurred are associated with increased costs of operation of the utility consistent with the utility's responsibilities, rather than an effort to protect public health or avert damages to improved public facilities. Increases in operating costs of utilities, as a result of disasters are not eligible for FEMA assistance.
Last updated