Oakmont golf courses may lose key water source
Operators of the two golf courses at Oakmont in east Santa Rosa say the city's proposal to close the community sewage tratement plant would deprive it of a vital water supply for irrigation.
KENT PORTER / THE PRSS DEMOCRATPublished: Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.
A city plan to decommission the Oakmont wastewater treatment plant has the community's golf club worried that one of its primary water sources will dry up.
The two 18-hole courses in the heart of the sprawling seniors' neighborhood east of Santa Rosa soak up about 100 million gallons of water each year to keep the 36 fairways and greens green.
Most of that supply is drawn from wells on the property, but about 40 percent is recycled water provided free of charge from the aging treatment plant the city has run since 1967.
The plant's small size and age have made it expensive to run, and the cash-strapped city could save substantially by shutting it down and treating the waste at the city's much larger regional sewage plant west of Rohnert Park.
That would force the golf course to find a new source of water. Even the cheapest alternative — buying millions of gallons of drinking water — would be a financial burden to a golf club that has seen the recession slice into its profits.
“If the decision is made that you buy aqueduct water, that's pretty much going to put the Oakmont Golf Club out of business,” said Rod Metzler, president of Empire Golf, which runs the club.
Concerned that its costs will soar, Metzler and a group of Oakmont residents attended the Board of Public Utilities meeting last week to urge the board not to hang the golf club out to dry.
They listened to Deputy Utilities Director Dan Carlson tell the board that the city's long, successful water partnership with the Oakmont community may be coming to an end.
“It's reached the point where it may not be beneficial to both sides anymore,” Carlson said.
The plant costs $400,000 a year to run. That works out to about $2,600 per acre foot of water treated or seven times more than it costs at the regional plant, he said.
The utilities department needs to decide soon whether to upgrade the plant or abandon it because its next capital improvement budget process starts in January. Carlson estimates the plant will need $1 million in upgrades over the next 10 years.
Oakmont resident Bill Smith reminded the board that it's not just the golf course that uses the water. Many of Oakmont's open spaces also rely on that water, he said.
The club, which is open to the public but privately owned by its members, is also a resource not just for Oakmont but for the whole region, Smith said. About 60 percent of the rounds played at the courses involve non-residents of Oakmont, he said.
The club is taking the position that if the city shuts the plant, it is obliged to find another way to continue supplying water.
City officials have a different view. The 1963 contract the city signed with the original Oakmont developer, Fairfield Homes, Inc., merely states that the community is “entitled to the use of reclaimed water from the plant.” It does not bind the city to run the plant and provide the water forever.
“Neither party to this agreement is obligated to either provide the water or receive the water,” deputy city attorney Janice Killion told the board.
Smith conceded that the plant's days may be numbered given the costs involved. “We completely agree that the plant will never be cost effective, so it really makes sense for all of us to find an alternative,” he said.
Just what form that alternative will take, and who pays the tab, are open questions. Both sides pledged to work cooperatively. Board of Public Utilities Chairman Dick Dowd urged them to resolve the issue quickly.
“We are underneath fiscal constraints to find solutions in a relatively short time,” he said.
Nothing will change this year. The plant will run as usual through the summer and shut down for the winter, when the effluent is redirected to the regional plant. Whether it reopens next spring is the issue.
It's unclear whether 40 million gallons a year are available from the Sonoma County Water Agency aqueduct that runs through the course on its way to the Sonoma Valley. Also uncertain is whether the course would be considered a “surplus user” that could be shut off from that water in drought years.
Metzler said it is clear that the course can't afford the cost of drilling new wells or the $70,000 it would take to buy that much drinking water, Smith said.
Though that $70,000 works out to less than $1 per round of golf, Metzler claims the course couldn't bear the increased cost. Some price-conscious golfers would go elsewhere, probably to other public courses.
“We can't cover that gap,” he said.
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.