SECTION ONE: INVESTIGATION, INSTALLATION AND … · (SHR) proposes to resolve the Arsenic MCL...

of 11

State Water Resources Control Board

Division of Drinking Water

North Coastal Section

Attn: Mr. Eric Swing via email: [email protected] October 10, 2016

Re: Snug Harbor Resort, LLC

3356 Snug Harbor Dr.

Walnut Grove, Ca. 95690

RE: Arsenic Corrective Action Plan; Request that SWRCB correct SHR well historical data displayed online; Request that

SWRCB recognize fact SHR was subject of test equipment from January 2015 through April 2016.

Mr. Swing,

The following information is being provided as the Arsenic Corrective Action Plan for the Snug Harbor Resort, LLC.

This plan outlines and explains how Snug Harbor Resort, LLC. (SHR) proposes to resolve the Arsenic MCL violation. SHR

is located waterfront on Steamboat Slough, and seasonal or artificial variations in flow and water quality of Steamboat

Slough may impact water quality of SHR wells, based upon review of historical actions in the area. This letter outlines

the treatment plan schedule in Section one, then provides a detail history of SHR drinking water system in Section Two.

Section Three provides reference to SWRCB incorrect data showing online related to SHR current well system, with

request for removal of specific incorrect data, and other associated requests for action or investigation by SWRCB.

SECTION ONE: INVESTIGATION, INSTALLATION AND TREATMENT SCHEDULE Please see letter from Quality Services, dated October 10, 2016 and labeled Attachment A, hereby incorporated by reference in full into this letter. Investigation and upgrade of Well #R1 is proposed to commence November 2016, with reports to SWRCB to follow. Subject to water and well quality investigations and SWRCB action approval, installation of treatment system would be installed by January 2018. Specific to the actions to be taken in November, 2016, the purpose is to investigate a possible well-casing cause for the arsenic level to increase from 10 ppb to 17 ppb:

Below is what we are proposing as far as a schedule for November 2016;

1. 11/7 - Fill up the water storage tanks, make sure the back up well system is in the lead position to

operate and lower the pressure switch on the tank booster pump to be a back up system. The pull

the pump out of well DW-1R. After the equipment is out, recirculate water back down the well

to clear up water in the well.

2. 11/8 - Conduct a video inspection of well DW-1R

3. 11/9 - (depending from video inspection)

1. develop well to remove debris (recirculate with water again to clear up the well)

2. install new pump system

https://email14.godaddy.com/search.php

of 11


1. re-video the well casing to make sure everything was removed

2. finish the pump system installation

3. Start the disinfection process of the well after the work was completed


1. Install pump

2. start the disinfection

3. finishing the disinfection

Note that SHR management has blocked off reservation system so that the resort will not accept any

reservations for stay onsite during the November 2016 well test period and for the following week as well.

However, leaseholders and staff will still be onsite and all persons onsite will be provided with notice of use of

alternate well water system as well as possible low water pressure occurrences. Please also note section Three

schedule request.

SECTION TWO: HISTORY OF WATER AND WELL USE AT RESORT PHYSICAL LOCATION

1876 to 1930: Island land grant to the Blake family, referred to “Charleston”

on some maps, located among the “Hogsback Shoals” area along Steamboat

Slough. Records indicate property was used as a private fishing camp, boat

landing, agriculture and at least two residential buildings. When island was

connected to Ryer Island by connecting the north end of the island using

dredging soils, it became a peninsula.

1930’s photographic evidence of well location for a fishing camp1. There were

also irrigation pumps along the banks for agriculture and possibly drinking

water as well.

1940’s: Peninsula is subdivided into residential parcels and an RV/MH park

with docks. New wells or surface pumps put in by residential owners of those

lots, and homes are constructed; park water is provided by surface flows and

a possible primary well located in the general area of current water treatment

system at SHR.

1950’s to 1986:

Several permitted

expansions and

redevelopment of the

RV and MH park, and creation of the covered berth marina on

Snug Cove, with permits. Well #1 is dug in 1979, and installed as

primary drinking water well serving the marina and RV/MH park.

Meanwhile, the residential lots north of the marina and RV/MH

park continue to be subdivided and sold by the land owners,

resulting in 28 residential parcels along the road, officially named

Snug Harbor Drive by Solano County public works department in

1986. [Information related to the wells of residential parcels

1 http://www.snugharbor.net/images2012/deltastuff/snugharbor1937.jpg

http://www.snugharbor.net/images2012/deltastuff/snugharbor1937.jpg

of 11

owned by others is not included in this report]. Permits indicate the primary drinking water well #1 was installed in

1979.

1986: Records from the state archives show two new wells were installed in other locations within the park grounds.

Wells serviced the RV park, marina and mobile home lots (8 homes). Permits from Solano County and California Dept of

Housing and Community Development recognize up to 99 lots, which were later reduced to 85 lots (8 MH and the rest

RV sites). Permits from Solano County show use as RV/MH park, store, gas dock, bar and restaurant, and covered berth

marina including up to 85 covered berths, 45 open berths or side ties and ten moorings. (USACE permits from 1980 and

1984 also reflect the same marina use, and note that the area of Steamboat Slough between Ryer Island levee and the

Snug Harbor peninsula was dredged in 1980 to install the covered berths.)

According to state archive records, Well #1 was located adjacent to the store/marina office near the park entrance, and

served the store, bar and restaurant, RV sites and some of the MH sites. Well #2 is located south along the peninsula,

near the covered berths, and appears to have served the covered berths in the marina area and the RV/MH sites located

near that well. Well #3 is located further south along the peninsula and served water for two or more MH lots located

south of the beach area. At some point prior to 1997, water distribution system for the park connected Well #1 and

Well #2 to provide adequate pressure to service as many as 380 persons per day, particularly during the busy summer

months. Well #1 was a deeper well and provided higher quality water, based on taste. There were no major storage

tanks or treatment center for the well water until after 1997.

1997: Property is sold in April, after a six month escrow where Phase 1 environment studies were conducted to verify

no environment issues or toxic materials were located on property. Former owner also provided written documentation

and inspections on the location and condition of six septic systems onsite, the location and permitted uses of the wells

and much more. Data was confirmed by Solano County records, and no Solano County records were found that

indicated any environmental issues related to the property. Both former owner and Realtor representing former owner

signed documents stating there was no toxins or other undisclosed issues. Buyer incorporates as Snug Harbor Resorts,

LLC (SHR), a small family-owned limited liability corporation, and completes purchase April 1997.

Although not disclosed in sales documents, it was discovered that in late summer months, Well #2, which is a shallow

well, can have a sulfur smell which might be offensive to customers. One of the first improvements made by new

owners was to install an ozone treatment system and two 2500 gallon storage tanks near Well #1, to maintain water

pressure throughout the park. New owners also separated irrigation water pipes from any possible connection to the

drinking water system, and labeled the different types of faucets per HCD directive.

1998: SHR discovers that former owner did not disclose several major issues, most important of which was the

existence of contaminated soil remaining from former underground gasoline storage tanks that had been removed in

1990, with permits and oversight by Solano County appropriate agencies. Evidence of the former UST’s, the removal of

the UST’s, and the clear directive that contaminated soil must be removed had not been disclosed by former owner, and

the Solano County records of UST removal, done in 1990 to 1992, were lost by Solano County and then found on the

desk of Mr. Eubanks (Solano County Environmental Resourced Dept) by January 1998. [Note that the removal of the

UST’s were required to be registered with the State when removed in 1990. At that time, Solano County delegated to

the local Fire Chief the responsibility to notify other agencies of the UST actions. Former owner of the resort was also

the local volunteer Fire Chief, and he did not distribute the records of removal of the UST as required. SHR was able to

track down the name of the local company that removed the UST’s, and that company provided the copies of records of

removal and location of the disposed USTs and location of the contaminated soil to be removed which had no record

showing the soil was removed.]

of 11

SHR immediately ordered tests of the primary drinking well, Well #1,

as it was located in close proximity to the contaminated soil. Tests

showed Well #1 had not been contaminated. SHR filed against

former owner and won in arbitration, and former owner was required

to hire professional company to remove contaminated soils. Former

owner also had to register the property with appropriate state and/or

federal agencies, and the property was accepted as a cleanup site

under the UST Fund program. Due to the location of Well #1, it had

to be destroyed before the contaminated soil could be removed, so a

new primary drinking water source was installed at an alternate

location determined by the consultants of former owner and the

agencies involved in the action. Well #R1 was dug by December 1999, was permitted for use by early 2001 and

immediately thereafter Well #1 was destroyed.

Note that Well #R1 had extensive tests done for all types of minerals and those tests were all submitted with the

application for operation of the new well. Arsenic in Well #1 tested at 10 ppb, well below the state MCL of 50 ppb at

that time. SHR is classified as NTNC.

2000: Original Well # 1 is destroyed during the process to remove contaminated soil. See full reports available.

2002: State records of well tests say a well located in Sacramento County, on Grand Island, was tested and the arsenic

level for “Well #1” was 17 ppb. Another state record says Well #1 was destroyed 2001. Both of those records are wrong

and SHR does not know where the state got that information.2 SHR requests that the SWRCB either remove the 2002

well test reports from the SHR records showing online, or verify who took those well tests, where was the well located,

and verify the test has anything to do with the existing drinking water sources for SHR, that is Well #1R and Well #2.

Note that links sometimes do not work, but that screen prints of all data has been preserved for reference. See

Attachment B. https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/SamplingResultsByStoret.jsp?SystemNumber=4800561&SamplingPointID=002&SamplingPointName

=WELL+02&Storet=&ChemicalName=&begin_date=&end_date= for well #2 and for destroyed Well #1.

2 See attachment B for screen prints of the following links accessed last on 10/1/2016 for reference to incorrect data posted online by SWRCB

regarding SHR former Well #1:

https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/SamplingResultsByStoret.jsp?SystemNumber=4800561&SamplingPointID=004&SamplingPointName

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/Arsenic/arsenicforweb2002-2005.xls and =WELL+DW-

1R&Storet=&ChemicalName=&begin_date=&end_date=

https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/MonitoringResults.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=4740&tinwsys_st_code=CA&counter=0 which leads to

new well #R1 record. Well #1 was destroyed in 2000 per the reports submitted to the county and state agencies in 2000, and SHR does not have a

well or own property in Sacramento County, on Grand Island. See attachment A for screen prints of the following links accessed last on 10/1/2016

for reference to incorrect data posted online by SWRCB regarding SHR former Well #1:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/Arsenic/arsenicforweb2002-2005.xls and

https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/MonitoringResults.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=4740&tinwsys_st_code=CA&counter=0 which leads to

new well #R1 record


=WELL+DW-1R&Storet=&ChemicalName=&begin_date=&end_date= and


=WELL+02&Storet=&ChemicalName=&begin_date=&end_date= for well #2 and for destroyed Well #1. Screen prints Attachment B.

https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/SamplingResultsByStoret.jsp?SystemNumber=4800561&SamplingPointID=002&SamplingPointName=WELL+02&Storet=&ChemicalName=&begin_date=&end_date



http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/Arsenic/arsenicforweb2002-2005.xls

https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/SamplingResultsByStoret.jsp?SystemNumber=4800561&SamplingPointID=004&SamplingPointName=WELL+DW-1R&Storet=&ChemicalName=&begin_date=&end_date


https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/MonitoringResults.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=4740&tinwsys_st_code=CA&counter=0

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/Arsenic/arsenicforweb2002-2005.xls

https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/MonitoringResults.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=4740&tinwsys_st_code=CA&counter=0





of 11

2005: USGS report of monitoring wells of the area show low levels of Arsenic in the North Delta along Sacramento River

area.

March 2007 HCD detailed summary of SHR Well R1 says it was last tested for arsenic on 11/05/1999, which was at the

exact time the new well was being drilled and tested for the new permits. Since HCD records do not show record of

arsenic test on well R1 in 2002, the records should be removed from HCD/SWRCB database.

2010: SHR Well # 1R, the primary drinking water source spikes from 10 ppb to 17 ppb according to test results.

Repeated test results from 2011 to 2015 range from 17 ppb to 19 ppb. HCD conducted an onsite inspection with follow

up report, authored by Pamela Evans of HCD. SHR is listed as a NTNC public water system

2011: USGS report of monitoring wells of the area show a striking increase in Arsenic in the North Delta along

Sacramento River area.

2014: CDH sends notice to SHR that Well #R1 exceeds MCL for arsenic and treatment will be required. SHR owner

enters into discussions with SWRCB staff water engineer assigned to the system, to discuss options for treatment. SHR

also contacts Quality Services, Inc to begin bid process for filtration system or review other options, like individual

filtration equipment at drinking water faucets. SWRCB water engineer proposes SHR as one of three test sites for new

arsenic treatment equipment by FREYTECK. Manufacturer supplies the treatment equipment at no cost to SHR, and

SWRCB will quarterly monitor the effectiveness of the equipment for one year. Equipment is installed by January 2015.

2014: In the meantime, SHR owner initiates a study of causes of arsenic in drinking water, noting that in 1999 SHR well

arsenic test was at 10 ppb and by 2011 it had almost doubled for no apparent reason.

January 2015 to April 2016: SWRCB staff came to SHR quarterly for a year to test the well water to see if the FREYTECK

equipment works. After a year of tests, no improvement is found. FREYTECK equipment failed to reduce the arsenic

level in the drinking water. Equipment Test concluded in April 2016. July 2016: SWRCB assigns new water engineer and

system manager, who apparently is not aware of previous efforts to comply with new MCL for arsenic. Non-compliance

letter is issued, July 2016, with follow up letters or email, denying SHR was a test site; it appears new compliance

engineer was not provided with the correct records of the property. SHR requests by email that non-compliance letter

be officially rescinded. SWRCB does not respond. Water test results provided by SWRCB water engineer Brownwood

by email to SHR on 7/23/2016, and to oversight person(s) at SWRCB enforcement office, as records of the equipment

test were not showing on SWRCB database. (see equipment graphic below)

of 11

After installation, SWRCB engineer Brownwood and others came onsite quarterly to test the water quality of both Well #R1 and Well #2, to compare between results of a well with the equipment

installed and a well with no equipment installed. Water tests were conducted on the following dates:1/30/2015 Investigator: vicki Lin DDWEM4/24/2015 Investigator: Robert Brownwood DWFOB7/15/2015 Investigator: Shang Yip SWRCB DWP

10/20/2015 Investigator: Robert Brownwood DWROB2/10/2016 Investigator: Robert Brownwood DWROB

Spring 2016: Since SWRCB equipment study failed, SHR begins the process again to determine what has caused the

increase in arsenic, to find the source and remove it if possible, and to also explore options for filtration of arsenic in the

drinking water.

July 2016: SWRCB issues non-compliance notice letter, based upon incomplete and incorrect information. SHR requests

that data be corrected.

October 10, 2016: SHR submits a plan for well water inspection and water testing at different levels, which will

determine if a system-wide filtration system would be cost effective, or if SHR should shift to using Well #2 as the

primary drinking source. SHR also requests that SWRCB open an investigation into the cause of increase in arsenic in the

drinking water wells of the North Delta, as it makes much wiser economic sense for the state to identify and stop the

source of increase in arsenic in groundwater than to have well owners incur unlimited current and future treatment

costs.

SECTION THREE: REQUEST THAT SWRCB REMOVE INCORRECT RECORDS FROM SHR DATA SHOWING ONLINE; REQUEST

THAT SWRCB ADD RECORDS FROM SWRCB TEST CONDUCTED BY SWRCB PERSONELL; REQUEST THAT SWRCB INITIATE

INVESTIGATION OF CAUSE OF AREA-WIDE INCREASE IN ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER IN THE DELTA AREA BETWEEN

2000 TO 2016.

A. SHR owner Nicole Suard, Esq has conducted an extensive investigation of the historical water test results for SHR

wells. In that investigation, it was discovered there are online reports of well tests for a well located on Grand

Island in Sacramento County. That is not a SHR well, and those records should be removed from reference to

of 11

SHR wells. Screen print below shows the specific record. The incorrect data was located at

geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov and go to the gamamap page:

Screen print below indicates NO test of SHR Well #R1, and in addition, 2010 HCD report does not list a 2002 test in its

detail of well test history. Between 1999 and 2010, SHR drinking water changes affect arsenic and barium levels, with no

known cause or source.

General link for online records is located as of 10/10/2016 at

https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=4740&tinwsys_st_code=CA&

counter=0

In addition, SHR notes that the gama data indicates SHR water system was listed as a “transient” system in 2005, when it

has consistently been NTNC, and has consistently had at least 10 to 40 persons living onsite year round during the

ownership of the LLC since 1997. This record should also be corrected.

B. SHR has been actively engaged in addressing the arsenic issue at SHR since SHR received the initial compliance

letter in 2014. SWRCB issued a non-compliance letter in July 2016 that appears to ignore the fact SHR was a test

site for new filtration equipment, that SHR had been making steps to comply, and that SWRCB had been onsite

quarterly working with SHR owner to determine most efficient and economical treatment options for a small

drinking water system like SHR. SHR requests that SWRCB issue a retraction of the July 2016 letter, or at least

issue a follow up letter recognizing the actions towards compliance already done by SHR, as well as the dates

and results of tests conducted by SWRCB staff. The specific methods for arsenic test of water should be

disclosed, as there are several methods to test arsenic and one of the issues that came up was that different

agencies and different water testing facilities may use different test methods which result in different outcomes

https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=4740&tinwsys_st_code=CA&counter=0

https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=4740&tinwsys_st_code=CA&counter=0

of 11

for the same water sample.

C. SHR requests that SWRCB initiate an extensive study to determine the cause of increase in arsenic in drinking

water in wells in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Region of the Central Valley. This request is based upon a

concern for the wellbeing of all water users in the area, including private drinking water systems as well as

public ones. It is also based upon the common sense approach to water contamination issues, which is to

identify the source of the contamination and remove it. To date, SWRCB has taken the approach of requiring

spot treatment instead of taking the responsibility to identify the source and address the source issues.

Review of area public drinking water wells by USGS, DWR and other agencies indicates a stark increase in arsenic

in drinking water wells, and therefore a decrease in drinking water quality, began to manifest after the 2005

USGS study of the Sacramento River basin, including the Delta area. By 2011, particularly along the Sacramento

River area of the North Delta, another USGS study showed substantial increase in arsenic in drinking water in

this area. SWRCB is the agency that is charged with protecting the state’s drinking water, including both surface

and groundwater. Based upon well tests and the pronounced degradation of area wells between 2005 and

2015, it is clearly the responsibility of SWRCB to investigate the cause of the drinking water degradation, and to

take action to stop whatever activities are causing the ongoing degradation of area drinking water wells. As

examples, SHR provides the following graphics: USGS 2005 arsenic results map, USGS 2011 arsenic results map.

SHR was one of those impacted drinking water wells as shown by the series of well test results over time.

Additional graphics which show the timing of increase in arsenic in drinking water is included in Attachment B.

SHR also requests that SWRCB direct all agencies currently conducting studies regarding flows and impacts to

humans and drinking water for the purpose of changes to points of diversions, or for proposals for restoration,

barriers, and new water rights request, specifically be directed to address the impacts to drinking water wells

from soil disturbance, low flows, or other actions that could cause an increase in arsenic in drinking water

within five to ten miles of the project location. Any actions that were already approved by SWRCB should

undergo a review process to determine if the action in fact caused the increase in arsenic in drinking water in

the Delta area.

SHR also request that SWRCB recognize that diversion and restoration actions pending or approved by SWRCB

which are located nearby SHR drinking water well could potentially have additional water quality impacts on

SHR drinking water, which means SHR would be put in the position to have to investigate and have the cost of

more or different treatment issues due to the restoration and/or diversion projects currently before the SWRCB

for approval. Projects include but are not limited to California WaterFix proposal, California EcoRestore actions,

Prospect Island restoration proposal, SAFCA levee modifications proposals, and DWR/USBR restoration actions

along Steamboat, Sutter and Miner’s Sloughs. SHR asks that any requirements for arsenic filtration at SHR be

suspended until such time as the impacts to SHR drinking water system be fully determined, or at least to after

implementation of the full Prospect Island restoration actions, which may substantially impact SHR drinking

water quality. In addition, SHR requests that DWR/USBR, the agencies conducting the studies which likely are

the cause of drinking water degradation in the North Delta, be required to pay for all costs to SHR of

investigation and treatment for the increase in arsenic in SHR main drinking water well.

(see graphics next pages):

Map below comes from the USGS study of water quality in the Sacramento River basin. Note that only in the

area above Sacramento were samples of arsenic above 10 ppb to above 50 ppb shown.

of 11

Map below comes from the 2011 USGS study of the Sacramento River basin groundwater quality. Notice the

striking change between the map above and the one below. You can see arsenic levels have increased all along

of 11

the Sacramento River below Sacramento:

This plan for addressing arsenic treatment of SHR drinking water system is intended to comply fully with

SWRCB requirements for small public drinking water systems, and to request that SWRCB assist in a cooperative

of 11

manner to find a resolution to the situation at SHR as well as investigate the cause of the increase in arsenic and

boron not only at SHR, but for all drinking water wells that have been affected in the North Delta region.

Respectfully submitted,

Nicole S. Suard, Esq.

Managing Member, Snug Harbor Resorts, LLC

Attachments incorporated by reference into letter:

Attachment A: Investigative report and schedule by Quality Services, Inc

Attachment B: Graphics related to arsenic and water quality in and around Delta area

SECTION ONE: INVESTIGATION, INSTALLATION AND … · (SHR) proposes to resolve the Arsenic MCL...

Documents

Transcript of SECTION ONE: INVESTIGATION, INSTALLATION AND … · (SHR) proposes to resolve the Arsenic MCL...