Even as neighborhoods in east Napa County battle severe groundwater shortages, preliminary studies show there is more than enough water to support the mixed-use development proposed at the south county Napa Pipe site.

The 2,580 homes and a host of commercial uses proposed at Napa Pipe would use only about 20 percent of the groundwater available to the property, according to Stetson Engineers Inc.

Stetson has been hired by the project developers, Napa Redevelopment Partners, to analyze the availability of groundwater as one of a battery of studies being conducted before Napa Pipe heads to the Napa County Board of Supervisors for a vote. A separate firm hired by the county, Luhdorff & Scalmanini, has independently confirmed the findings in the report.

The study shows that the Napa Pipe project would use about 620 acre-feet of groundwater per year from the Sonoma Volcanics Aquifer. This represents only about 20 percent of the 3,100 acre-feet available per year from the aquifer, according to Steve Reich, senior supervising engineer at Stetson.

Combined with neighboring properties such as Syar Industries and several vineyards to the east of Napa Pipe, groundwater use in the area would still total only about half of what is available.

“The availability of water is there,” Reich said, noting that water from the source has been transported as far as Crockett over the years because of its plentiful supply. “Water is occurring in great abundance because of recharge from the east and recharge coming down from the north.”

Reich dismisses concerns over Napa Pipe’s effect on neighboring groundwater supplies, particularly on the Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay area in east Napa County, where wells have been thirsty for groundwater for more than a decade.

“It’s a truly separate region,” Reich said. Because of geographical distance and a difference in geology, Napa Pipe’s water use might lower the water level in parts of the MST area from one to two feet, but the same amount of water would be available in the area regardless of the project, Reich said.

Napa Pipe developer Keith Rogal has even suggested that Napa Pipe might be able to help with the water shortage in the MST area. He has offered to study the idea of pumping excess groundwater from Napa Pipe to MST, though many people are skeptical about whether this is even a possibility.

“I’m still concerned,” said Fred Swingle, Coombsville resident and member of the group Groundwater Under Local Protection, or GULP. But while he remains skeptical about the study’s findings, he is hopeful that the transfer of water from Napa Pipe to MST could help solve his neighborhood’s water problems.

While MST remains the most high-profile water crisis in Napa County, Stetson’s water study goes on to show that there is no connection between the aquifer at Napa Pipe and the Napa River, an important find from a water rights perspective, as it shows there is no surface diversion to Napa Pipe.

Rogal said the findings are “consistent with the notion that the project is self-sufficient.”

“The goal,” he said, “is to have a truly reliable and sustainable source, and it’s hard to imagine a more sustainable source than groundwater.”

Water fight?

Even with the good news from Stetson, water may prove to be one of the most contentious issues with regard to Napa Pipe and a critical policy debate: Should residential developments be allowed to draw groundwater to support their projects?

The county’s General Plan specifically “discourages urbanization requiring net increases in groundwater use” — calling into question whether or not the county can permit Napa Pipe to use groundwater, no matter how plentiful in the area.

Dana Smith, Napa’s assistant city manager, argues, “If the county’s going to change its policy and allow the extraction of water for urban development, then it sort of calls into question why the cities have not also been using groundwater for urban development. Our ratepayers pay a considerable amount to buy and transport water. … Is there a big aquifer down there, yeah, but that doesn’t belong to Napa Pipe. It belongs to whoever can draw from it.”

Hillary Gitelman, planning director for Napa County, said the General Plan may or may not preclude Napa Pipe from using groundwater.

“The Napa Pipe site is already urbanized,” she said, “but I think this is a policy question. Do we want to permit intensification on that site based on groundwater?”

Gitelman noted that the county is also studying an alternative to groundwater, and — at the city’s request — consultants are looking into the effects of Napa Pipe using city water.

Rogal said the use of groundwater is consistent with the county’s General Plan.

“Napa Pipe was urbanized — developed for urban uses — about 70 years ago,” he said. “The site has continuously made substantial use of groundwater since the 1930s. The Napa Pipe proposal does not involve the use of groundwater for new urban development in a previously agricultural or rural area.”

Meanwhile, Smith claims Napa Pipe developers have failed to explain who would run the water agency at Napa Pipe, and how the relatively hot water available there would be treated.

Also unclear at this point is whether the Napa Sanitation District or a new private sewer facility would be used to treat wastewater. The Napa Sanitation District is recommending that the property be served by the district.