To follow on Wednesday’s post about management of San Francisco’s water supplies with and without the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, I would like to put my consultant hat on. (Ok, admittedly I am a consultant, though a new one, so the hat isn’t a stretch.) Let’s talk about project management. Major engineering projects require studies and paperwork before actual construction can begin. In the case of potential O’Shaughnessy Dam removal, I have consulted the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for planning stages. The DWR studied the dam removal in 2006, compiling all the previous research to date, identifying gaps in the research, and recommending a path forward for further studies. This is how they say things are done:
DWR’s description of what each level of study means and entails.
- Complete concept level studies.
- Complete appraisal-level studies.
- Complete feasibility-level studies.
- Complete detailed studies and programmatic documents.
- Complete environmental impact report and site-specific design engineering.
[See the image to the right for the difference between these levels of studies.] So far, the concept level studies are partly complete for water replacement, power replacement, physical dam removal, valley restoration, and the future public use plan.
Thus, using our study definitions, most of the prior work is, at best, at the “concept level” of study. That is, the body of work to date, including the state’s work on the potential costs for the potential project, is not sufficient to support sound public policy…Completing all aspects of existing studies to a common level (concept or appraisal) would be a key milestone in the decision-making process, by providing a basis for recommendation to either terminate the study or proceed with feasibility investigations.
Translation: do some more studying to get everything up to par, then continue with in-depth studies about the feasibility of dam removal. Then, if everything still looks good and the costs are acceptable, start your EIR and design engineering. (Note that the EIR could still get rejected at the end of everything, just as a warning.)
Ok, so this is the path forward. My understanding of the ballot measure, based on newspaper reports rather than the vague language of the ballot measure itself, is that San Francisco would spend no more than $8 million on the concept-level studies, then have a vote in 2016 about whether to go forward with dam removal. That’s unfortunately not how things are done.
As listed above, the concept-level studies lead to feasibility studies, after which the go/no go decision can be reasonably made. With concept-level or appraisal-level studies in hand, you can continue studying or rule out the project — you can’t start to design or build. The DWR estimates that the concept-level study would cost $7 million in 2005 dollars. The appraisal-level study would be another $13 million, the feasibility studies another $32 million, and the detailed studies/programmatic documents another $13 million. To be clear, the DWR estimates another $58 million in expenses just to get to EIR and design phase. I would estimate this to work out to nearly 10 years of work.
The total cost of dam removal is estimated to be $3 -$10 billion (2005 dollars) in the 2006 report. It’s pretty reasonable to expect to spend roughly 1% of that price ($60 million) to determine whether the project should proceed, rather than just 0.1% ($8 million). (For perspective, they estimate $3-6 billion to restore the Salton Sea, $1-2 billion to deal with Owens Valley, and $10-16 billion to meet California’s flood management needs.)
Look, the guys who drafted Proposition F have the right idea — they want San Francisco to recycle more water and manage stormwater better. I approve of that. But they’re pushing on this the wrong way. I spoke with an employee of Kennedy/Jenks, the firm that designed San Francisco’s state-of-the-art water recycling plant earlier this year. The firm has twice gotten to the design stage of the plant (that’s step 5 above), only to be killed at the last minute due to concerns about the plant’s location in the city. It takes a lot of money and time to get to construction design stage, and then have to restart at a new location. Spend that $8 million on an education campaign so that the next design iteration doesn’t get killed by NIMBY. And building the extra infrastructure first means that the Bay Area won’t undergo water shortages every ~5 years while the projects are sorted out.