17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Section 3: Alternatives Evaluation Water Supply Alternatives Study 3-6 DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. Water Supply Alternatives Study-Draft Report.docx 3.4 Tradeoffs Each alternative offers a unique mix of opportunities and challenges, as summarized in Table 3-3. These tradeoffs were considered along with the analysis of benefits and cost to inform selection of a preferred alternative. The City will need to consider the cons, challenges, and risks while advancing next steps, as further discussed in Section 4. Table 3-3. Tradeoffs Associated with Shortlisted Alternatives Alternative Pros and Opportunities Cons, Challenges, and Risks Alternative 1 – Baseline Project •City retains its GPQ •Reliability (water supply and system) •National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements already complete •Required permits identified and design advanced to 50% •State Revolving Fund (SRF) and grant funding ($5M to $10M) •Requires distribution system upgrades for peaking ability to meet future demands •Fixed high cost •Operation of a treatment facility •Potential future regulations for media disposal and additional PFAS compounds •Access to SRF and grant funding may change Alternative 2 – Reduced Baseline •City retains its GPQ •Less costly than Baseline Project •NEPA/CEQA already complete •Required permits identified and design advanced to 50% •SRF and grant funding ($5M to $10M) •Opportunity for phased approach to address source water reliability issue if combined with Alt. 3 or Alt. 4 •Lacks redundancy (only one well) •Requires distribution system upgrades for peaking ability to meet future demands •Fixed cost •Operation of a treatment facility •Potential future regulations for media disposal and additional PFAS compounds •Access to SRF and grant funding may change Alternative 3 – Two New City Wells •City retains its GPQ •Least costly alternative •Opportunity for phased approach to address source water reliability issue if combined with Alt. 2 or Alt. 4 •Aligns with existing operating competency of City staff •Likely continued eligibility for State Revolving Fund and grant funding •Requires test wells to confirm production rates and water quality •Requires completion of NEPA/CEQA requirements and more complex new well permitting •Requires distribution system upgrades for peaking ability to meet future demands •Requires ongoing monitoring and coordination with Zone 7 to reduce risk of mobilizing the PFAS plume •Higher degree of cost uncertainty Alternative 4 – 100% Purchases from Zone 7 •Zone 7 has more technical/managerial capacity to handle future regulatory challenges •Volumetric cost (mostly) •Low capital cost, and City may not need to purchase 3,500 AFY every year •Opportunity to leverage foregone GPQ in contract negotiation •Lacks local supply (within Pleasanton’s control) •Requires distribution system upgrades for peaking ability to meet future demands •Potential loss of groundwater pumping rights (or pushback from other Zone 7 retailers) •Dry year uncertainty: •Zone 7 may not guarantee delivery of 3,500 AFY •Unknown escalation of wholesale supply rate: •Zone 7 may increase the price of purchase at their discretion •Potential SRF and grant funds ($5M to $10M) may dwindle if this path is pursued