Response of SCWC
SCWC disagrees with RRB's contention that SCWC is not required to comply with the CAP because it is not a "legally enforceable regulation." SCWC contends that in so arguing, RRB ignores California's Surface Water Treatment Rule, which RRB admits is an enforceable regulation, and the relationship between the Surface Water Treatment Rule and the CAP.
SCWC states that in short, the Surface Water Treatment Rule and the CAP require a finished water turbidity of no more than 0.1 NTU. SCWC believes it must comply with this requirement. Further, SCWC points out that, leaving no room for doubt, DHS informed SCWC that if the Sonoma Treatment Plant "is not achieving these goals the Department will expect the utility to take actions, and incorporate those actions into its operations plan, to improve the performance of its treatment facility."7
SCWC disputes RRB's contention that the Company refused to employ the least expensive means for achieving the goals of the CAP. SCWC points to the testimony of its witnesses Denise L. Kruger and William C. Gedney. Beginning in 1995, in implementing the Partnership for Safe Water and the Cryptosporidium Action Plan, SCWC evaluated every step of the process of the treatment plant. Coagulants were changed to achieve more efficient operation. Chemical feeds and flocculators were reviewed, variable speed drives were replaced, and alarm settings were reexamined to achieve better plant operation. Sprinklers were added to the sedimentation basin to address a floating algae problem. And most importantly, the whole process was slowed down to meet the limitations of the sedimentation basin.8 . SCWC claims it considered all reasonable alternatives.
In contrast to DHS witness Burton's testimony that tube settlers were an effective way to increase the capacity of the sedimentation basin, SCWC witness Gedney testified that his experience with tube settlers at two of SCWC's other plants was very negative: they were not cost effective, they were very high maintenance, they did not last very well, and they were not satisfactory in their performance. Gedney did not know of any written analysis of SCWC's experience with tube settlers and he did not know the cost of tube settlers. He also was not asked and did not estimate or quantify the cost of the high maintenance expenses which he associated with this technology.
7 DHS letter dated July 9, 1997. 8 The record in this proceeding does not show the cost of these various CAP treatment changes. We note that with the exception of the change in flow rate, the cost of which is the subject of this application, the processes described are included in SCWC's Operations and Maintenance expenses and already are incorporated in rates pursuant to SCWC's last general rate case decision, D.00-12-063.
