Cross-Country Pipeline Replacement Constructability Study:
SLVWD Receives “Sticker Shock” from Consultant Report
March 1, 2022
Jim Mosher and Mark Dolson
The SLVWD Board received a “sticker shock” consultant report at its February 17th meeting. Replacing the two above-ground High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) water supply lines destroyed by the CZU fire will likely cost $53.8 to $62.8 million. This is triple the District’s original estimate of $20 million for all the CZU fire infrastructure damage.
The approximately seven miles of lost pipelines (Peavine and Five Mile pipelines) are a critical part of SLVWD’s infrastructure, connecting Peavine, Sweetwater, and Clear Creek surface water intakes to the Lyon Treatment Plant. The SLVWD hired the firm of Freyer & Laureta to study construction needs, working closely with District Staff.
The consultants examined five alternatives for replacing the pipelines: 1) above ground HDPE pipe (duplicating the previous construction); 2) above-ground welded steel pipe to reduce risk of damage in case of another fire; 3) below-ground HDPE pipe with either (a) above ground stream crossing or (b) below-ground creek crossing; 4) new pipeline routes for water obtained from Clear and Sweetwater Creeks using either independent or common pipelines, with pumping stations; 5) a common Clear and Sweetwater Creek pipeline with a new treatment facility.
Expert teams assessed each option based on four key criteria: safety, including fire hardening; constructability, including potential costs; operations and maintenance, focusing on meeting established performance levels while facilitating long-term maintenance; and stakeholder impact, including potential community and environmental benefits and risks.
The teams provided numerical scores for each option using the identified criteria. Option 3(b) – below-ground HDPE pipe – was clearly the preferred choice, particularly when examining potential risks. It also provides optimal earthquake, wildfire, landslide, and debris flow protection.
The consultants preliminary estimate of $53.8 million to $62.8 million for Option 3(b) may change as the project progresses given the complex construction, regulatory, and environmental factors involved. The team did not provide cost estimates for the less desirable options, but they stated that they do not anticipate major cost savings.
Following the presentation, President Gail Mahood noted that the estimated cost created serious sticker shock and wished to examine less costly solutions and determine potential FEMA reimbursement. Director Bob Fultz requested more specific information on the impact of not replacing some or all of the pipes. General Manager Rick Rogers said that the District would need to draw more water through its wells, leading to adverse impacts on both the aquifer and the surrounding environment.
The Board did not take any formal action, but they agreed on option 3(b) as preferable, initiating conversations with FEMA as soon as possible, and reengaging the consultants to conduct a more detailed study of the preferred option. The consultant’s PowerPoint is available at (scroll down to page 6):
https://www.slvwd.com/sites/g/files/vyhlif1176/f/agendas/bod_meeting_agenda.2.17.22_with _backup.pdf