News

Pleasanton council votes to bring wells back online in case of emergency during summer

Staff to test groundwater monthly; city will also continue stressing voluntary conservation

Control panel for city-operated Wells 5 and 6. (File photo by Chuck Deckert)

The Pleasanton City Council granted staff authority Tuesday to use the city's groundwater wells 5 and 6 as deemed necessary during this summer's peak water demands with the caveats that staff must test the wells every month and continue to stress the importance of water conservation locally.

The decision to reactivate two of three city-operated wells facing PFAS contamination to supplement Pleasanton's water supply removed the need to adopt a mandatory demand for 15% water conservation for the council majority, with the city instead to focus on encouraging voluntary cutbacks among residents and businesses.

"We are going to hit the conservation message as hard as we can over the coming months to make sure that folks know that we are doing our very best to create less stress on our water infrastructure during this period of time," City Manager Gerry Beaudin said during Tuesday's regular meeting.

"But ... if we can't get there, then we would use the wells. We would start with Well 5 -- if we can't take the pressure off the system with that, we would move to Well 6," Beaudin said.

The 4-1 vote, with Vice Mayor Jack Balch being the lone dissenter, came after a lengthy discussion that night about Pleasanton's battle to address PFAS chemicals found in the two aforementioned wells along with Well 8. PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, were first found in Well 8 back in 2019, which is when the city shut down the well.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

According to the staff's presentation on Tuesday, Well 8 recently tested exactly at the recently enacted state response levels of PFAS chemicals that are allowed to be in city water.

While Well 8 is still on standby and cannot be brought back online due to these state response levels, staff said that the other two wells have tested below the state levels and are therefore safe to drink.

And with summer coming up, staff had decided to bring the now-adopted recommendation of using the wells 5 and 6 as backups in case the city cannot meet those summer water demands by just using the water it is currently purchasing from the Zone 7 Water Agency.

Beaudin added that the main goal is maintaining and ensuring water reliability in Pleasanton.

"We're trying to move through a period of time in our history where we're looking at all the options to ensure reliability," he said. "The wells are available to us. They provide a comparable level of water to what we're getting from our water provider. In addition to the turnouts and wells, we have reservoirs and tanks in our community, so there's belts and suspenders everywhere."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"What we're talking about here is just trying to create some clarity with the council, with the community, about all of the options that we have and how we'd like to use them going forward," Beaudin added. "We want to make sure that the water supply is there, and that it's meeting quality expectations."

Balch however, was against the whole idea of bringing any of the wells back online.

According to Balch, Well 6 has had higher PFAS response levels of the last few years and his main worry was that if the city brought that well back online, it would eventually test above the response levels, leaving the city in a position where they would have to scramble to make up for that loss.

At first he tried to compromise in using Well 5 only with the addition of bringing back a 15% water conservation mandate because he said his main problem was with Well 6.

"I'm really challenged with doing any of it, frankly," Balch said. "If I can minimize the amount of mandatory conservation from 15% to 10%, because I allow Well 5, which has been below the response level several times over that same four year period, I'm willing to try to do that. But I can't support Well 6 coming back online -- it's never tested below the response level."

Beaudin, however, pointed to the fact that the well has tested below the response level recently given the new testing requirements, which were different from the past years, and that the water is considered safe to drink.

"We've had one of the rainiest wet seasons on record. And so groundwater conditions have likely shifted," he said. "The factors have shifted. It's not just the testing methodology. It's a number of other things, including having wells turned off for a period of time."

"If we're testing monthly, and we're below the response level ... that's the quality of water that is in our system currently," he added.

A look inside the control room for the city's well operations. (File photo by Chuck Deckert)

Beaudin also said that the move to turn on the wells if needed during possible summer peak demands -- which staff said might or might not happen -- was not in any way a solution to addressing the city's issues with PFAS in the groundwater.

That discussion was addressed during the previous item on Tuesday's agenda where city staff updated the council on the ongoing efforts to develop a comprehensive list of alternative solutions to meet the city's 20% groundwater pumping quota that has been historically produced by the city-owned wells.

The council had originally begun looking at constructing a water treatment and rehabilitation facility, known as the "PFAS Treatment and Wells Rehabilitation Project", to treat and rehabilitate wells 5, 6 and 8 in Pleasanton and to create a new centralized treatment facility for PFAS treatment, disinfection and fluoridation.

However, the council voted to push pause on that project last September in order to evaluate other options, mainly due to a $46 million pricetag on the project.

Since then, a Water Ad Hoc Subcommittee was formed; the council established a new water supply alternatives study capital project and contracted with Brown and Caldwell -- an engineering and construction firm focused on water and environmental sectors -- so that the city has different options to address the issue at hand.

Staff presented the list of options to the council on Tuesday including pros and cons that came with each decision.

Some of the alternatives on the list include modified treatment only for Well 8; building a new well on the west part of the city outside of PFAS plume; having Zone 7 pump from the existing wells or purchasing 100% of the city's water from the agency; or constructing a joint, regional treatment facility with Zone 7.

These options came out of months of screening out various alternatives that might have not been possible or were too costly. These options that were screened out included blending water, local alternative water supplies, purchasing water from other local retailers other than Zone 7 and expansion of the non potable recycled water systems.

The next steps for staff in the water supply alternative front will be creating a detailed evaluation of benefit criteria for each of the options and determining the capital costs so that a final draft and report can be presented to the council this September.

"It looks like we are on the path to figuring out what we're going to do here," Councilmember Valerie Arkin said. "Over the next four months, we will have multiple times of getting more information as we complete the next steps so I look forward to that."

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Christian Trujano
 
Christian Trujano, a Bay Area native and San Jose State alum, joined Embarcadero Media in May 2022 following his graduation. He is an award-winning student journalist who has covered stories in San Jose ranging from crime to higher education. Read more >>

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

Stay informed on important city government news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

Pleasanton council votes to bring wells back online in case of emergency during summer

Staff to test groundwater monthly; city will also continue stressing voluntary conservation

by / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, May 17, 2023, 3:22 pm

The Pleasanton City Council granted staff authority Tuesday to use the city's groundwater wells 5 and 6 as deemed necessary during this summer's peak water demands with the caveats that staff must test the wells every month and continue to stress the importance of water conservation locally.

The decision to reactivate two of three city-operated wells facing PFAS contamination to supplement Pleasanton's water supply removed the need to adopt a mandatory demand for 15% water conservation for the council majority, with the city instead to focus on encouraging voluntary cutbacks among residents and businesses.

"We are going to hit the conservation message as hard as we can over the coming months to make sure that folks know that we are doing our very best to create less stress on our water infrastructure during this period of time," City Manager Gerry Beaudin said during Tuesday's regular meeting.

"But ... if we can't get there, then we would use the wells. We would start with Well 5 -- if we can't take the pressure off the system with that, we would move to Well 6," Beaudin said.

The 4-1 vote, with Vice Mayor Jack Balch being the lone dissenter, came after a lengthy discussion that night about Pleasanton's battle to address PFAS chemicals found in the two aforementioned wells along with Well 8. PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, were first found in Well 8 back in 2019, which is when the city shut down the well.

According to the staff's presentation on Tuesday, Well 8 recently tested exactly at the recently enacted state response levels of PFAS chemicals that are allowed to be in city water.

While Well 8 is still on standby and cannot be brought back online due to these state response levels, staff said that the other two wells have tested below the state levels and are therefore safe to drink.

And with summer coming up, staff had decided to bring the now-adopted recommendation of using the wells 5 and 6 as backups in case the city cannot meet those summer water demands by just using the water it is currently purchasing from the Zone 7 Water Agency.

Beaudin added that the main goal is maintaining and ensuring water reliability in Pleasanton.

"We're trying to move through a period of time in our history where we're looking at all the options to ensure reliability," he said. "The wells are available to us. They provide a comparable level of water to what we're getting from our water provider. In addition to the turnouts and wells, we have reservoirs and tanks in our community, so there's belts and suspenders everywhere."

"What we're talking about here is just trying to create some clarity with the council, with the community, about all of the options that we have and how we'd like to use them going forward," Beaudin added. "We want to make sure that the water supply is there, and that it's meeting quality expectations."

Balch however, was against the whole idea of bringing any of the wells back online.

According to Balch, Well 6 has had higher PFAS response levels of the last few years and his main worry was that if the city brought that well back online, it would eventually test above the response levels, leaving the city in a position where they would have to scramble to make up for that loss.

At first he tried to compromise in using Well 5 only with the addition of bringing back a 15% water conservation mandate because he said his main problem was with Well 6.

"I'm really challenged with doing any of it, frankly," Balch said. "If I can minimize the amount of mandatory conservation from 15% to 10%, because I allow Well 5, which has been below the response level several times over that same four year period, I'm willing to try to do that. But I can't support Well 6 coming back online -- it's never tested below the response level."

Beaudin, however, pointed to the fact that the well has tested below the response level recently given the new testing requirements, which were different from the past years, and that the water is considered safe to drink.

"We've had one of the rainiest wet seasons on record. And so groundwater conditions have likely shifted," he said. "The factors have shifted. It's not just the testing methodology. It's a number of other things, including having wells turned off for a period of time."

"If we're testing monthly, and we're below the response level ... that's the quality of water that is in our system currently," he added.

Beaudin also said that the move to turn on the wells if needed during possible summer peak demands -- which staff said might or might not happen -- was not in any way a solution to addressing the city's issues with PFAS in the groundwater.

That discussion was addressed during the previous item on Tuesday's agenda where city staff updated the council on the ongoing efforts to develop a comprehensive list of alternative solutions to meet the city's 20% groundwater pumping quota that has been historically produced by the city-owned wells.

The council had originally begun looking at constructing a water treatment and rehabilitation facility, known as the "PFAS Treatment and Wells Rehabilitation Project", to treat and rehabilitate wells 5, 6 and 8 in Pleasanton and to create a new centralized treatment facility for PFAS treatment, disinfection and fluoridation.

However, the council voted to push pause on that project last September in order to evaluate other options, mainly due to a $46 million pricetag on the project.

Since then, a Water Ad Hoc Subcommittee was formed; the council established a new water supply alternatives study capital project and contracted with Brown and Caldwell -- an engineering and construction firm focused on water and environmental sectors -- so that the city has different options to address the issue at hand.

Staff presented the list of options to the council on Tuesday including pros and cons that came with each decision.

Some of the alternatives on the list include modified treatment only for Well 8; building a new well on the west part of the city outside of PFAS plume; having Zone 7 pump from the existing wells or purchasing 100% of the city's water from the agency; or constructing a joint, regional treatment facility with Zone 7.

These options came out of months of screening out various alternatives that might have not been possible or were too costly. These options that were screened out included blending water, local alternative water supplies, purchasing water from other local retailers other than Zone 7 and expansion of the non potable recycled water systems.

The next steps for staff in the water supply alternative front will be creating a detailed evaluation of benefit criteria for each of the options and determining the capital costs so that a final draft and report can be presented to the council this September.

"It looks like we are on the path to figuring out what we're going to do here," Councilmember Valerie Arkin said. "Over the next four months, we will have multiple times of getting more information as we complete the next steps so I look forward to that."

Comments

Michael Austin
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on May 17, 2023 at 5:16 pm
Michael Austin , Pleasanton Meadows
Registered user
on May 17, 2023 at 5:16 pm

Council did not discuss the cost of testing once a month. It is very costly. Staff could not state definitely that the lab can complete monthly testing. It was iffy per staff. City manager stated the water well 5 is safe to drink, that is not true, if there is one part per trillion it is not safe to drink. The EPA will not state water is safe when it is 70 PPT or 6 PPT which will be the requirement in three years.


Dean Wallace
Registered user
Stoneridge
on May 17, 2023 at 5:55 pm
Dean Wallace, Stoneridge
Registered user
on May 17, 2023 at 5:55 pm

It's difficult to comprehend the priorities of our City Council majority and the City Manager. A year ago this was the most important issue to the mayor and every member of our City Council. During the 2022 campaign cycle, every single candidate said that addressing the unacceptable PFAS contamination in Pleasanton's wells was a top priority. No need for "clarity" - it was clear.

So what's changed? Not the water in the wells! It's the same exact water in those wells, with the same contaminants in it.

What's changed? Well, election season is over, and so folks now have some new pet projects, i.e. “priorities”, and they'd rather use the money on those things rather than ensuring that we have access to clean and safe water to drink. And the Mayor and the majority feel they don't require any additional community input on those new priorities. Don't like it? Too bad. They won, so deal with it.

It's also the misguided priorities from a City Manager who is more concerned about his compensation package, rather than LEADING the City, and working to fill the many key job vacancies in City Hall - vacancies in a building that's rapidly aging and put to shame by our neighboring cities. (There's no need for any metaphor here, the cockroach traps speak for themselves.)

Most everyone agrees about one thing: Pleasanton water stinks! Take a peek at "Pleasanton Rants and Raves" on Facebook. No, there's no question Pleasanton water is ALREADY bad. I triple filter mine. And every two days I have to wipe & scrape the residue of contaminants and minerals that builds up around my bathroom and kitchen sinks. But rather than invest in a solution to clean our contaminated wells - to ensure safe and clean water - the City Council just voted to say loud and clear: "You think the water is bad now? Well, we think it can still get just a *little* worse!"

Last year the Mayor and Council majority said addressing our contaminated wells was a top priority. And Pleasantonians agreed. What changed?


Dean Wallace
Registered user
Stoneridge
on May 17, 2023 at 7:57 pm
Dean Wallace, Stoneridge
Registered user
on May 17, 2023 at 7:57 pm

One additional point: There's another big city expense that continues to grow considerably under this Mayor, Council majority, and our City Manager, and those are consulting fees. Bills from overpaid, outside, consultants.

We pay higher and higher consulting fees because the City Manager *chooses* to run our City this way. He recently gave himself a raise, before he's gotten around to filling more of the many vacancies on our City staff. Adding new staff, who could do lots of this work in-house, would bring down costs in the long-term - rather than constantly doing one-off consulting contracts that outsources skills and knowledge - and degrades the capabilities of the City over time.

There's been recent evidence of this already occurring. At one Council meeting a basic question was asked of the water expert on our City staff about what the contractual obligations the City has with Zone 7. The response? He didn't have one. Because he didn't know. "That's something our new consultants are going to take a look at..." was the response - from our City staff member overseeing the City's water operation! He couldn't answer a basic question on our contract with Zone 7. Neither could our City Attorney (who also recently got himself a raise, and who also oversees the ever-increasing legal fees our City has been incurring).

These things MATTER. We are paying a real premium because our City Manager refuses, or is unable, to do the job of hiring and filling critical vacancies on City staff. If there's ever a question the City can't answer, or doesn't have the bandwidth to address, the response is always to hire a consultant.

Cities don't have to be run this way. It's costly outsourcing, and creates gaps in our City's institutional capabilities and knowledge when dealing w/very serious issues like our water crisis, and our fast-approaching aging infrastructure and sewage issues. And in the end taxpayers end up bearing the costs of these inefficiencies and gaps in knowledge.


Michael Austin
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on May 18, 2023 at 6:13 pm
Michael Austin , Pleasanton Meadows
Registered user
on May 18, 2023 at 6:13 pm

Majority Vote on City Council is Damaging Pleasanton:

The majority vote on the Pleasanton city council is throwing taxpayer money where it absolutely is not needed. The skate park, an old house on Santa Rita Road, Consutants, it is a long list of spending taxpayer money wastefully.

Look At What Zone 7 is Doing with Water:

Stoneridge treatment facility will treat 5,500-acre feet of water per year. it is expected to be online in August this year. Cost is $16.3 million.

The Chain of Lakes treatment facility will treat 8,600-acre feet of water per year. Construction is expected to begin soon and be online in August 2024, Cost is $24.4 Million.

Pleasanton uses less than 3,500-acre feet of water. The money the council majority is throwing away on pet projects would take care of Pleasanton water requirements.


MsVic
Registered user
Mission Park
on May 19, 2023 at 7:17 am
MsVic, Mission Park
Registered user
on May 19, 2023 at 7:17 am

Based on the decisions being made by the majority of 4 council members perhaps it’s time for a recall. The skate park is Testa’s pet project.


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

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.