News

Studying potable reuse water for Pleasanton

City Council delays debate on $250K contract, hears from residents

The Pleasanton City Council postponed its discussion on a proposed "task order" -- with a potential $250,000 pricetag for Pleasanton -- for more regional studies into potable reuse in the Tri-Valley last week, but a handful of residents still had plenty to say about the contract.

City staff recommends Pleasanton sign on to a potentially $1 million task order with three other Tri-Valley public water agencies for preliminary studies and community outreach and education under the ongoing "Tri-Valley Intergovernmental Reciprocal Services Master Agreement" to explore the possibility of supplementing the local water supply with recycled water treated for drinking purposes, better known as potable reuse water.

The task order was listed on the consent calendar for the council's Feb. 4 regular meeting, but the item was delayed to a future meeting without any discussion by the council for unspecified reasons.

Five residents who saw the item on the original agenda still had the opportunity to speak on the task order at the Feb. 4 meeting, expressing their concerns about potable reuse and surprise the contract had even been proposed as a consent matter.

"For the Tri-Valley, (potable reuse) is still not ready for prime time here," Laurene Green, a water resources engineer in Pleasanton and candidate for the Zone 7 Water Agency Board of Directors in the primary election, told the council.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support PleasantonWeekly.com for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

"I can't image how it's possible this even made it onto the consent agenda," Paulette Salisbury said, later adding she was glad the task order wasn't "slipping through and not having any more public scrutiny."

A topic that resurfaced amid water supply debates during the drought, potable reuse in the Tri-Valley was the subject of joint technical feasibility study several years ago among Zone 7, the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, the Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Water Service Company's Livermore division.

The study, whose results were released almost two years ago, concluded the concept of a potable reuse project in the Tri-Valley was feasible based on regulatory, technical and financial considerations.

When reviewing the feasibility report in May 2018, Pleasanton council members voiced support for more technical studies and a more updated evaluation of the region's water supply. But they also made it clear they want their voters to weigh in at some point in the process, either earlier on with a ballot question about supporting the general concept or later when a final project proposal is available.

For council members at the time, there was a desire to hear directly from Pleasanton residents on the question of potable reuse -- would there be public support for treating wastewater for use as drinking water in the city, especially the so-called "ick factor" or the stigma of monikers like "toilet-to-tap."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

The debate picked up momentum again last summer when the Tri-Valley Water Liaison Committee supported further analysis of a potential regional potable reuse project.

The committee, which consists of elected officials from the four public agencies plus corporate representation from Cal Water, a private company, has backed the concept for general scope of the further study with Zone 7 serving as the lead agency, according to Kathleen Yurchak, city director of operations and water utilities.

"The committee determined that joint collaborative efforts by the Tri-Valley water agencies should be undertaken to: 1) further technical and institutional study of potable reuse, 2) continue to evaluate other water supply reliability options, and 3) develop a community outreach/engagement program to educate the Tri-Valley residents and businesses on the region's water supply challenges and potential solutions," Yurchak wrote in her Feb. 4 staff report to the council.

The proposal calls for the two cities, DSRSD and Zone 7 -- as the public water agencies -- to evenly split the costs of the new preliminary studies and community outreach and education up to $1 million total. Cal Water could participate and reimburse its pro-rated share, if given approval from corporate leaders and the California Public Utilities Commission.

To cover Pleasanton's portion, city staff recommends dedicating up to $250,000 to the endeavor from the capital improvement program budget.

That proposed task order was scheduled on the City Council's Feb. 4 consent calendar, a collection of items deemed routine in nature and voted upon all at once without discussion unless pulled for separate consideration that night.

But at the outset of the meeting, City Manager Nelson Fialho announced the item was being taken off the agenda and postponed to the following meeting. (That date was later pushed out.)

As a result, the council members did not discuss potable reuse among the dais, since it was no longer on their night's agenda, but they allowed residents in attendance to speak on the issue during the non-agenda public comment portion of the meeting.

The five speakers were generally critical.

"To begin with, we still can't identify all possible contaminants in our sewer waters," Green said. "The difficulty of keeping up with new, dangerous and unregulated chemicals makes this very problematic and hard to guarantee safety. If you want to understand why this is so important, look no further than the PFAS problem we are now challenged with."

Green also raised concerns about permit standards, costs for operation and maintenance, disguising marketing efforts as "communications" with the public and moving forward with more studies without an advisory vote from Pleasanton residents on the potable reuse issue.

"I'm really concerned about the quality of our water, our drinking water, and I want to make sure there's no advancement towards potable reuse projects in Pleasanton," Salisbury said. "We're not going to stand by and let this happen because we're not a silent public in this community.

"Seeing this item come up on the consent agenda didn't strike me as quite the right way to handle it," resident Pierre Bierre said. "I read the (staff) report and although I realize this is a study of potable reuse, I feel as though we should be looking much more broadly at our options for water supply reliability."

"What I'd like to see us working on in terms of options is the idea that rainwater should remain the raw material source of choice for drinking, gardening and agricultural hydration," Bierre added, advocating for better collection and storage of rainwater in the Tri-Valley.

The potable reuse task order has been tentatively rescheduled for one of the council meetings in March.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Studying potable reuse water for Pleasanton

City Council delays debate on $250K contract, hears from residents

by / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 6:16 pm

The Pleasanton City Council postponed its discussion on a proposed "task order" -- with a potential $250,000 pricetag for Pleasanton -- for more regional studies into potable reuse in the Tri-Valley last week, but a handful of residents still had plenty to say about the contract.

City staff recommends Pleasanton sign on to a potentially $1 million task order with three other Tri-Valley public water agencies for preliminary studies and community outreach and education under the ongoing "Tri-Valley Intergovernmental Reciprocal Services Master Agreement" to explore the possibility of supplementing the local water supply with recycled water treated for drinking purposes, better known as potable reuse water.

The task order was listed on the consent calendar for the council's Feb. 4 regular meeting, but the item was delayed to a future meeting without any discussion by the council for unspecified reasons.

Five residents who saw the item on the original agenda still had the opportunity to speak on the task order at the Feb. 4 meeting, expressing their concerns about potable reuse and surprise the contract had even been proposed as a consent matter.

"For the Tri-Valley, (potable reuse) is still not ready for prime time here," Laurene Green, a water resources engineer in Pleasanton and candidate for the Zone 7 Water Agency Board of Directors in the primary election, told the council.

"I can't image how it's possible this even made it onto the consent agenda," Paulette Salisbury said, later adding she was glad the task order wasn't "slipping through and not having any more public scrutiny."

A topic that resurfaced amid water supply debates during the drought, potable reuse in the Tri-Valley was the subject of joint technical feasibility study several years ago among Zone 7, the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, the Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Water Service Company's Livermore division.

The study, whose results were released almost two years ago, concluded the concept of a potable reuse project in the Tri-Valley was feasible based on regulatory, technical and financial considerations.

When reviewing the feasibility report in May 2018, Pleasanton council members voiced support for more technical studies and a more updated evaluation of the region's water supply. But they also made it clear they want their voters to weigh in at some point in the process, either earlier on with a ballot question about supporting the general concept or later when a final project proposal is available.

For council members at the time, there was a desire to hear directly from Pleasanton residents on the question of potable reuse -- would there be public support for treating wastewater for use as drinking water in the city, especially the so-called "ick factor" or the stigma of monikers like "toilet-to-tap."

The debate picked up momentum again last summer when the Tri-Valley Water Liaison Committee supported further analysis of a potential regional potable reuse project.

The committee, which consists of elected officials from the four public agencies plus corporate representation from Cal Water, a private company, has backed the concept for general scope of the further study with Zone 7 serving as the lead agency, according to Kathleen Yurchak, city director of operations and water utilities.

"The committee determined that joint collaborative efforts by the Tri-Valley water agencies should be undertaken to: 1) further technical and institutional study of potable reuse, 2) continue to evaluate other water supply reliability options, and 3) develop a community outreach/engagement program to educate the Tri-Valley residents and businesses on the region's water supply challenges and potential solutions," Yurchak wrote in her Feb. 4 staff report to the council.

The proposal calls for the two cities, DSRSD and Zone 7 -- as the public water agencies -- to evenly split the costs of the new preliminary studies and community outreach and education up to $1 million total. Cal Water could participate and reimburse its pro-rated share, if given approval from corporate leaders and the California Public Utilities Commission.

To cover Pleasanton's portion, city staff recommends dedicating up to $250,000 to the endeavor from the capital improvement program budget.

That proposed task order was scheduled on the City Council's Feb. 4 consent calendar, a collection of items deemed routine in nature and voted upon all at once without discussion unless pulled for separate consideration that night.

But at the outset of the meeting, City Manager Nelson Fialho announced the item was being taken off the agenda and postponed to the following meeting. (That date was later pushed out.)

As a result, the council members did not discuss potable reuse among the dais, since it was no longer on their night's agenda, but they allowed residents in attendance to speak on the issue during the non-agenda public comment portion of the meeting.

The five speakers were generally critical.

"To begin with, we still can't identify all possible contaminants in our sewer waters," Green said. "The difficulty of keeping up with new, dangerous and unregulated chemicals makes this very problematic and hard to guarantee safety. If you want to understand why this is so important, look no further than the PFAS problem we are now challenged with."

Green also raised concerns about permit standards, costs for operation and maintenance, disguising marketing efforts as "communications" with the public and moving forward with more studies without an advisory vote from Pleasanton residents on the potable reuse issue.

"I'm really concerned about the quality of our water, our drinking water, and I want to make sure there's no advancement towards potable reuse projects in Pleasanton," Salisbury said. "We're not going to stand by and let this happen because we're not a silent public in this community.

"Seeing this item come up on the consent agenda didn't strike me as quite the right way to handle it," resident Pierre Bierre said. "I read the (staff) report and although I realize this is a study of potable reuse, I feel as though we should be looking much more broadly at our options for water supply reliability."

"What I'd like to see us working on in terms of options is the idea that rainwater should remain the raw material source of choice for drinking, gardening and agricultural hydration," Bierre added, advocating for better collection and storage of rainwater in the Tri-Valley.

The potable reuse task order has been tentatively rescheduled for one of the council meetings in March.

Comments

Michael Austin
Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 12, 2020 at 6:35 pm
Michael Austin, Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 12, 2020 at 6:35 pm
9 people like this

Hetch Hetchy water flowing into San Francisco passes through Pleasanton and supplies Castlewood and points south. The city leadership needs to discuss and negotiate with the city of San Francisco for an alternate water supply for the city of Pleasanton.


Rhubarb
Carlton Oaks
on Feb 13, 2020 at 1:42 pm
Rhubarb, Carlton Oaks
on Feb 13, 2020 at 1:42 pm
12 people like this

No one likes to think about and acknowledge this: Our tap water is already recycled from sewage to potable, it's just that it's being used first by upstream communities who then discharge their treated sewage back into the environment. How is recycling to potable locally any different?


Michael
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 13, 2020 at 2:51 pm
Michael, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 13, 2020 at 2:51 pm
7 people like this

Why isn't the Gates listed as a neighborhood? Before anything is done, I suggest researching all cities in CA that already use non-potable to tap water for their customers. How do they keep their community healthy or are they not healthy? A summary of findngs should be made public for edcuational purposes.


Michael
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 13, 2020 at 2:56 pm
Michael, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 13, 2020 at 2:56 pm
6 people like this

In my previous comment, please use potable reuse in place of non-potable. My mistake.
I don't see a way to go back and edit it muself.


Fisher
Bordeaux Estates
on Feb 14, 2020 at 4:40 am
Fisher, Bordeaux Estates
on Feb 14, 2020 at 4:40 am
5 people like this

Uncleaned organic compounds (mostly difficult to oxidize), a suspension of activated sludge containing a mass of bacteria and protozoa, and a number of inorganic compounds, which include compounds of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), fall into the body of water with treated sewage from the city sewer. , salts of heavy metals, sulfates, chlorides, etc.


Sky
Castlewood
on Feb 14, 2020 at 4:43 am
Sky, Castlewood
on Feb 14, 2020 at 4:43 am
5 people like this

In recent years, the use of treated wastewater in the chemical and metallurgical industries has received significant development. For this purpose, the wastewater after complete biological treatment is subjected to post-treatment on sand filters and, after chlorination, iodine is fed to feed the circulating systems. In particular, at the Chelyabinsk and Novolchpetsk metallurgical plants, it is planned to use the treated urban wastewater as the main source of water supply.


Thirst for Knowledge
Vintage Hills
on Feb 14, 2020 at 11:34 am
Thirst for Knowledge, Vintage Hills
on Feb 14, 2020 at 11:34 am
7 people like this

From Wikipedia:
The future of water reuse in California is expansion. With the population of California expected to nearly double by 2055[6] and with the anticipated effects of climate change in an already water-strained state, water reuse will continue to be an integral part of California's water story. The State Water Resources Control Board has laid out plans for the increased "use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least one million acre-feet per year (AFY) by 2020 and by at least two million AFY by 2030."[4] The DWR reviews and updates the California Water Plan every 5 years. Currently, priority funding is given to new projects in the state that incorporate water reuse.[4]


Kiko
Val Vista
on Feb 14, 2020 at 7:31 pm
Kiko, Val Vista
on Feb 14, 2020 at 7:31 pm
5 people like this

I have a house in Henderson, NV. That's a little south east of Las Vegas, on the desert and there is no water problem there.


Michael Austin
Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 14, 2020 at 7:54 pm
Michael Austin, Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 14, 2020 at 7:54 pm
7 people like this

Hoover Dam is eighteen miles from Henderson!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.