Cape May Water System Needs Hefty Investment

CAPE MAY – Cape May has a history of innovation in the way it provides a supply of safe, economic water to its residents. Twenty years ago, the city implemented cutting-edge technology in a first-of-its-kind desalination plant, the only such plant in the Northeast at the time.
The plant and its associated equipment are 20 years old, and the city is facing a need for significant new investment.
That was the message in a presentation to the city council by the engineering firm Mott MacDonald March 3.  
The presentation briefed council on the salient points contained in a three-inch thick Water Management Plan prepared for the city by the firm last year.
The plan assessed the system, reviewed its compliance with federal and state regulations and made recommendations for future improvement. 
Those recommendations came with a potential price tag, as much as $29 million over a 10-year span, with almost half of that needed in the first four years.
The water system expenses are included in the city’s self-liquidating water and sewer utility, but it remains to be seen if the utility can absorb that level of new investment without sharing the burden with the general budget which is supported by property taxes rather than user fees.
The Water System
The presentation provided a basic overview of the city’s municipal water system. The system services approximately 5,000 permanent customers in the city, in West Cape May, and at the Coast Guard Base. 
The average daily demand is for 1.1 million gallons (MGD), but the summer months see demand at levels four times that of the off-season.
A full 16% of the water generated is unaccounted for, producing no revenue. The aging system may have substantial leaks.
The report estimates that future demand will grow slowly, roughly 5% over the next decade.
The distribution system boasts 36 miles of water main piping, two water storage tanks, and three 10 to 16-inch transmission mains.  
The city’s permit, through the state Bureau of Water Allocation, extends through 2026. The maximum demand is within the permit parameters.
The report found the 1.15 MG effective storage in the city’s two water tanks adequate for the system’s needs.
In a review of the operations and management of the system, the report recommends implementation of a computerized maintenance management system, along with the development of a formal valve inspection and maintenance protocol.
The report concludes that the water quality from the Atlantic City 800-Foot Sand Aquifer “has been and is expected to remain relatively stable.”  
It reaches a different conclusion for the Cohansey Aquifer, saying that it “should not be considered a viable long-term water supply source” due to elevated iron and an “upward historical trend” in elevated sodium and chloride.
Assessment of Water Supply and Treatment Facilities
Cape May’s water supply comes from two major sources. The desalination facility supplied by wells 6 and 7, along with water directly from well number 5, which requires “sequestering treatment for elevated iron.”
Wells 1 and 2 date to the 1940s and were abandoned due to high chloride levels. Wells 3 and 4 were taken off-line in the 1990s due to water quality problems.  
The desalination facility utilizes reverse osmosis technology rated at 2 MGD. The report recommends the expansion of the facility to increase the feed rate (MGD) by 50%. The report also notes that the equipment in the 20-year-old facility needs to be updated and replaced.
The report lists the “top 10” capital improvement projects, categorizing them as short-term or long-term needs. Eighty percent of the improvements are dedicated to improving the capacity and reliability of the facility, while the remainders are dedicated to transmission and distribution projects.
Short-term, in the language of the report, is one to four years, and long-term means five to 10 years. 
While the report has dedicated sheets justifying and describing each of the recommended capital projects, it presents a summary leading to the estimated $29 million in recommended new investment.
The summary of the decade-long investment plan calls for just under $1 million in annual renewal, almost $11 million in short-term projects and almost $9 million recommended for long-term projects.
Breaking the project down by basic goals, a chart categorizes just under one-third of the investment, 32%, as aimed at expanded capacity, another 47% directed to annual and other renewal projects, just over 12% as necessary for regulatory issues and the remainder aimed at increased reliability and efficiency.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.