14 - Laserfiche WebLink

three wells, Well 8 rehabilitation to restore its pumping capacity, and interconnecting pipelines for Wells 9 and 10 that replaces Wells 5 and 6 to the CTF. • Option 2 — Reduced Baseline: PFAS Treatment for Well 8 only, includes CTF treatment at the City's Operations Services Center, and Well 8 rehabilitation to restore pumping capacity. • Option 3 — Two New City Wells (west of the PFAS plume), located within the Bernal subbasin and with sufficient capacity to reliably deliver the City's full groundwater quota on an annual basis. • Option 4 — 100% Purchases from Zone 7, includes annually purchasing the full groundwater quota amount from Zone 7 and paying the applicable Zone 7 water rates associated with these deliveries. To clarify, the City is assumed to forego pumping its groundwater quota (without waiving such rights), and the foregone groundwater would presumably be pumped by Zone 7. It may be necessary for Zone 7 to add facilities or incur costs to perform these services that are not included in this analysis. Although a regional PFAS treatment facility was initially considered, all of the above options were evaluated from a City-only perspective. It has been determined that cost efficiencies and other benefits from partnering with Zone 7 on any of the options could occur. Therefore, including a regional option was dropped from the analysis, but partnering with Zone 7 should be further explored, no matter which option the City selects. In addition to developing planning level capital and operations & maintenance (O&M) costs for each option, staff included costs of necessary system improvements to ensure the total fiscal needs were covered for each alternative. A hydraulic modeling analysis of the distribution system was conducted to identify any improvements required for pressure and flow changes in the system. The relocation of the source of supply can create system deficiencies in existing pipes, pumps, and turnouts that would need to be remedied as part of the project implementation. Only the improvements needed exclusively for each option were incorporated to ensure consistency across the total cost comparison. In consultation with the Water Supply Alternatives Ad Hoc Subcommittee, staff performed a multi-criteria decision analysis considering various criteria and weightings. The analysis details are as follows: • Water supply reliability — the ability to meet water demands predictably and consistently, including dry years. Considers redundancy of system and ability to meet demands during peak periods and or emergency conditions. Weighting 35% • Implementation Timing — how quickly the alternative can be online, considering the timeframe for design, permitting, and construction (if applicable). Weighting 25% • Water Quality/Regulatory Compliance — degree of ability to deliver water below all current and anticipated future state and federal drinking water standards. Weighting 15% Page 3 of 6