Agenda - 05-05-1997 - 9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 Other differences between the WRC proposed scope of work and that proposed in this USGS draft scope are found in Item 4 on page 7 and in the last sentence of Item 5 on page 9. Specifically, Item 4 has been revised to set up a process by which County staff will be able to evaluate well-head capture areas for public water supply wells (community wells) and maintain and update the data base(s) related to these wells. The initial proposal involved USGS evaluating and creating a database for all existing community water supply wells but had no component for updating database(s) or for training of County staff to maintain or update the databases. The revision stated in Item 5 involves establishing guidelines for a monitoring well program. The initial WRC scope of work actually provided for a network of ten monitoring wells to be provided. Both the Item 4 and Item 5 modifications are for the purposes of reducing project costs (approximately $15,000 County costs). If the County is to commit itself to an obligation of approximately$80,000 per year for three years to participate in a project with the USGS, there are several important things which should be noted. The most important factor to keep in mind is that USGS is not a"consultant"; it undertakes projects more in the role of partner. Unlike a consultant, the USGS has a vested scientific and financial interest in the data and outcome produced by any project it undertakes. Thus one major advantage to USGS participation is that USGS' precision and independence combine to produce a study in which results and findings are of high quality and therefore cannot be easily assailed on the basis of bias or bad science. If there is a disadvantage to participating in a project with USGS (as compared to a hired consultant), it is that USGS' vested interest in the project makes USGS, its investigative/analytical processes and procedures and the project itself more difficult to redirect or guide. The USGS study process is generally more expensive, in the sense of total costs rather than local share cost, than a consultant generated project. The additional expense results from USGS' exacting process for obtaining uncontaminated field data, providing data analysis of high order precision and USGS's exhaustive internal peer review process. One other important factor in undertaking a project with USGS rather than a consultant is that, once the County signs a contract with USGS, it is committing itself to funding the project for all three years. If the County wishes to cut costs for this project, the cleanest cut involves the elimination of the water quality element. It is possible and even probable that this portion of the project could be accomplished more cheaply by a consultant. It could certainly be accomplished at a later date. The total cost of the water quality element of the proposed study is approximately$50,000 with a County savings of approximately $25,000. However, I believe that eliminating the water quality portion of this project would be a mistake. While ground water quality does not appear to be a serious or widespread problem in Orange County, it is a major component of the BOCC's ground water goal. Water quality is certainly a high profile issue that can be expected to generate public concern and interest, perhaps more so than ground water quantity. I do not believe that the savings are sufficient to justify the elimination of the ground water quality portion of the project. If I may provide additional information, please advise.