CCMIN041696 - Laserfiche WebLink

should not get control over decisions on growth in Pleasanton. Hayward, San Leandro, and other agencies don't care about Pleasanton they way its Council will care. There is a point where this Council must say it has controlled growth to the year 2020 and let go. It was moved by Mr, Pieo, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to adopt Resolution No. 96-35, directing the LAVWMA representative to support the Livermore response to the EBDA proposal as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Mohr asked if there is agreement on the number of gallons to take, but there is no agreement on pipeline size, would it be possible for DSRSD to claim a part of that capacity and each agency try to do its own project. Mr. Lure indicated that is one of the complications of the parties proceeding with incompatible projects. Ms. Mohr felt there were two projects: one to get EBDA to agree on how much it will sell us and the other for the valley to agree on what size pipe to build. If the plug is in the other end by virtue of the number of gallons we can buy, then if the pipe has a little air space, what difference does it make? She did not feel we should fight on the size of the pipe. Mr. Lum indicated the pipe size is of concern because the larger the pipe, the more opportunity it provides for increased growth potential. Mr. Pico felt that only applies if you go along with the concept of influent limitation, which is indefinite if there is a sunset of that limitation. What we have is a situation which requires two steps. The furst is to reach agreement between LAVWMA and EBDA on being able to get the excess capacity. Then we have to reach agreement among all the LAVWMA agencies on the size of the pipe. Ms. Mohr had concerns with the influent limit. If the agreement is structured based on what goes into the treatment plan, then diverting what comes out of the treatment plant for reverse osmosis (RO) would mean that we are paying double: once for what goes in and once for what comes out to EBDA. If some of that is diverted for RO then we pay for it twice and that is a disincentive to use the technology and to conserve water. Mr. Lum indicated there is a capital buy-in fee that relates to the influent flow limitations. When you talk about paying double, there probably are some expenses in that regard. The variable costs are factored in terms of what flows to EBDA and those variable costs would be reduced if flow were reduced. It does not deter the use of RO as a technology, it just means RO cannot be used to increase growth. You cannot exceed 32.42 MGD with the use of RO, but you can use it in terms of other environmental benefits. He further indicated the EBDA deal is only about 15% of the total cost of the expansion project. Most of it is capital costs for the pipeline, extra pump stations, etc. While there is some increment of cost to EBDA for the 04/16/96 -20-