Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton city council drops pursuit for potable water

Original post made on Feb 3, 2021

Pleasanton is no longer pursuing potable reuse as a water supply alternative after the City Council voted 3-2 to stop studying the matter with other regional agencies on Tuesday.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, February 3, 2021, 7:05 PM

Comments (28)

Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Feb 3, 2021 at 7:52 pm

Joe Public is a registered user.

Thank you, Mayor Karla Brown and Council Members Valerie Arkin and Julie Testa for voting to stop putting the tax payer’s money towards the study of “toilet to tap” or the potable reuse recycled water. We need to put our taxes towards a more important issue in our town which is getting rid of the PFAS and other forever chemicals in our well water which have limited our drinking water supply by 10%. The voters in 2000 said no to toilet to tap! Let’s remember that the residents should get clean and safe water.


Posted by pope john
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 3, 2021 at 8:59 pm

pope john is a registered user.

Good Decision!

Why can't the city of Pleasanton cut a deal with Hetch Hetchy water system?

It is right here in Pleasanton's back yard.


Posted by Dave Wilson
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 4, 2021 at 8:12 am

Dave Wilson is a registered user.

[Removed because the same poster is using multiple names trying to appear there is more support for his/her opinion.]


Posted by Jocelyn Combs
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Feb 4, 2021 at 9:35 am

Jocelyn Combs is a registered user.

I hope the City Council will reconsider their choice to pull out of this study. Studies are for information gathering and do not commit the city to making a decision. Staying at the table is important when other agencies are talking about our water. What may seem unacceptable now in terms of water quality may, years from now with advanced technology and decades of drought, be a reasonable option. More choices is better than fewer.


Posted by MsVic
a resident of Mission Park
on Feb 4, 2021 at 10:10 am

MsVic is a registered user.

I think it is very short sighted to withdraw from the study. This is about more than potable water. This gives us a voice with other tri valley cities. This is about science and the study not about committing to toilet to tap. Our council is showing its short sidedness. Thank you Jack Balch and Kathy Narum for recognizing this is about more than just toilet to tap water! It’s going to be a long few years with thinking like this from the majority of the council. This is on the heels of another bad decision IMO. Review the videos of the recent meetings on the city web site.


Posted by Longtime Ptown Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Feb 4, 2021 at 11:07 am

Longtime Ptown Parent is a registered user.

Wow. The majority of our Council just chose ignorance over education. I’m so embarrassed for them personally and for us as a town.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 4, 2021 at 6:42 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Very short sited decision.


Posted by Diane
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Feb 4, 2021 at 9:00 pm

Diane is a registered user.

Potable reuse involves injecting water "desalted" with reverse osmosis - cleaner than anything that comes down the North Bay Aqueduct to Zone 7. We would drink it after it spends years in the aquifer. Think about what else percolates into the aquifer and there isn't much 'yuk' in reuse. We need to make full use of our water rights, ie. Well #8 if that is what it takes; but only potable reuse gives us new supply for the distant future. Every acre foot of water in Northern California is adjudicated ie. bought and paid for by someone.


Posted by Ben J.
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 4, 2021 at 10:27 pm

Ben J. is a registered user.

Those who applaud this are just as uninformed, aka ignorant, like those on the council. If you've been to Southern California, especially Disneyland area, you've showered, bathed, swam in pools and drank from reuse potable water. Orange County has the world's largest advanced water purification system for potable reuse.
Mr. Maciel, who called in, and Brown's baby remark sounds like something a five year old, who doesn't know much, might say if asked about something they didn't know. (Sorry five year olds.) Really, she was voted in as mayor? Glad I can say she didn't get my X on the ballot. Guaranteed she did zero research. Are we really that dumb as a community to vote these people in?
Apparently so...


Posted by James Michael
a resident of Val Vista
on Feb 5, 2021 at 9:21 am

James Michael is a registered user.

It's a study to look at options to a water problem. What do they have to lose, it wasn't a binding agreement. I guess elections have ramifications now more than ever.

Aren't these the same people that are slamming the citizens into EBCE?

And on the question of water itself, why CA has a problem is ridiculous...we have the Pacific Ocean on our doorstep. We should have desalination plants. My God, we need leadership and not politicians.


Posted by Ndna Jnz
a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 5, 2021 at 11:38 am

Ndna Jnz is a registered user.

Why should Pleasanton taxpayers pay $250K for a study, when residents have by far rejected the idea of potable water?
What about the unresolved issue for potable during summer months?
Since the time when Councilmembers Narum and Brown signed on to the study, Pleasanton has acquired a very serious problem in PFAS, which will be quite expensive to clean up. It makes more sense to spend the $250K on that issue, as Mayor Brown pointed out.
Furthermore, for those posting here who accuse councilmembers of not doing research, nothing is further from the truth. The scientific facts available now regarding the safety of potable reuse water point to many issues and questions. Look it up yourself.


Posted by Mica
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 5, 2021 at 2:42 pm

Mica is a registered user.

If Pleasanton agreed to study it with other regional agencies, we need to keep with it. It’s like pulling out of the Oaris Climate Agreement. We are all stakeholders and can learn from talking together about shared info. Shows a weak character to bale at this point


Posted by Linda Kelly
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 5, 2021 at 2:59 pm

Linda Kelly is a registered user.

Mayor Brown, councilmembers Arkin and Testa have not stopped to realize the astronauts traveling aboard the space station are drinking their own urine, sweat, and condensation from themselves as well as any animals that might be aboard at the time.


Posted by Craig
a resident of Val Vista
on Feb 5, 2021 at 3:08 pm

Craig is a registered user.

I see on the news that some municipalities are finding Covid 19 in their sewer water. So you people still want toilet to tap? I think not.


Posted by Ndna Jnz
a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 5, 2021 at 6:47 pm

Ndna Jnz is a registered user.

Astronauts? Space station? I was under the impression this discussion was more down to Earth. And why are you pushing potable so hard, Linda – do you have a stake in the required equipment?


Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 5, 2021 at 7:11 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

FYI:

A new $23 million dollar toilet was recently received at the international space station.

Twenty percent of all water consumed and or lost on the international space station is sent by NASA from earth.


Posted by Mica
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 5, 2021 at 8:38 pm

Mica is a registered user.

These posts show another reason(s) to continue with multi agency and city review together to get answers and share with the public


Posted by Linda Kelly
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 6, 2021 at 12:22 am

Linda Kelly is a registered user.

Craig, I'm not pushing recycled potable. I believe at this juncture it is too expensive. I am pushing for the council not to alienate our neighbors and our water supplier by pulling monies they had already voted for twice, leaving those neighbors and supplier to pull funds from their own budgets to make up what we agreed to months and months ago. We agreed to finish the study, consultants have been contracted, they have jointly committed to doing it, and now we are saying, sorry. Money is already allotted for PFAS/PFOS clean up, both from Zone 7 and in our city budget, so there isn't a shortfall that needs bolstering by $3 million.

Ndna, it would be nice, but the answer is simple, of course not. Silly to suggest it.

Michael Austin, that means 80% is recycled. Icky water, according to some. I'm unaware of no harm resulting from it. We're trying to attract scientifically cutting-edge businesses to Pleasanton. If we, as a community are truly forward-thinking, then turning a blind eye to on scientific studies and exploration for future needs surely sends the wrong message.


Posted by MsVic
a resident of Mission Park
on Feb 6, 2021 at 10:18 am

MsVic is a registered user.

Linda Kelly is right on with her remarks. Watch the meeting. And while you are at it watch the previous meeting where the council has now decided that you cannot add an ADU as a second story addition. This council is a mess - thanks Karla, Julie and Valerie for the shortsightedness on both of these issues. Now I am counting the days till we get to vote these three out.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 6, 2021 at 1:01 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Ndna Jnz,

Linda Kelly is using a good illustrative example to remind us that all water we drink and bathe in recycled, as many have pointed out. Using this technology, as well as desalination makes all kinds of sense.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2021 at 1:11 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Ndna Jnz,

"The scientific facts available now regarding the safety of potable reuse".

Yes, and the studies show that it is safe.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2021 at 1:16 pm

BobB is a registered user.


Posted by Ndna Jnz
a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 6, 2021 at 1:19 pm

Ndna Jnz is a registered user.

BobB – I don't appreciate you taking my text out of context; what about the rest of that sentence?
And no, the studies do not show that it is safe. Please do your own research before making inaccurate statements – it makes you look bad.


Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 6, 2021 at 1:33 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Another Tidbit:

There are no showers on the international space station.
Astronauts use wet wipes to clean themselves.


Posted by Ndna Jnz
a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 6, 2021 at 1:39 pm

Ndna Jnz is a registered user.

I stand corrected. Apparently, we ARE talking about the ISS. Ha! Did you know that the ISS...


Posted by BobB
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 6, 2021 at 1:41 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Ndna Jnz,

I would avoid using the phrase "do your own research", because it is frequently used by anti-vaxxers. They aren't doing scientific "research", they are just reading nonsense on the internet. You can look up many health studies published by reliable, verifiable mainstream sources regarding recycled drinking water, for instance:

Web Link

"... robust evidence that recycled water represents a source of safe drinking water ..."


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2021 at 4:22 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Michael Austin,

Thanks for the information on the ISS. Very interesting!


Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2021 at 4:55 pm

Pete is a registered user.

Mayor Brown, Council members Arkin and Testa, Thank You...! PFAs are an important area of concern for all of us. How much water is pumped from wells in Dublin/Livermore that contributes to the 10%+ of water used within our Valley...? In any given year...? Drought year...? Pleasanton leadership senses to prioritize a concern that recycling may not entirely alleviate. Besides, Dublin/Livermore drains their waste/runoff through Pleasanton arroyos...you all can figure that out. Besides, we can only be five year olds for a short time.


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

Email:


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.


Get the most important local news stories sent straight to your inbox daily.

Couples and Premarital: How Do You Define Love?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,884 views

Rep. Ro Khanna wants to require all businesses to pay $15 per hour
By Tim Hunt | 17 comments | 1,362 views

Honors Colleges and Honors Programs: Key Differences
By Elizabeth LaScala | 2 comments | 1,076 views