CCMIN060695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver stated that the recycling process is encouraged but the issue is controlling the amount of growth by of how much sewage processing we have. EBDA did indicate that there is some savings if LAVWMA doesn't use the capacity. Hayward indicated a willingness to discuss reducing its fees if LAVWMA reduced our capacity. Ms. Mohr stated that reducing the quantity was not balanced against recycling. It was reducing what went into the treatment plant. Mayor Tarvet said it is measured as to how much goes into the plant not what comes out of the plant. If you want to recycle the water so it doesn't go into the pipe, you don't have to pay for that water. There is a reduced operating cost that is tied to the amount that is pumped. Mr. Lum agreed that if less water is put into the system, it costs less to operate. The impacts of EBDA's costs don't really impact whether or not to use technology relative to the EBDA deal. He thought reuse didn't have a significant impact at all. He felt there was an opportunity in the way the agreement is drafted to utilize other institutional arrangements in the future and look at a reuse plant outside the LAVWMA system that could treat wastewater and, for example, inject it back into the groundwater. Ms. Mohr stated that it would have to be a diverted before it went into the existing plant because the proposed urban limit lines provide that we can't build a second plant as a means of by-passing this limit on gallons. Mr. Lum said the agreement would allow treatment of wastewater outside the urban limit lines. There is a question as to the treatment of sewage within the urban limit lines by a treatment facility not operated by LAVWMA. Mr. Roush stated that assuming the San Francisco plant was functional, it appears that the proposal talks about a LAVWMA operated system. There might be a question as to whether capacity represented by a self-contained treatment plant would be counted toward the total amount. Ms. Mohr stated that once the urban limit lines are established, we cannot divert part of what is in the defined area as a means of by-passing the gallon limitation and what goes into the plants. Even if we set up a new facility, those gallons still have to be counted as going into the plant. If we chose to go with recycling at any point within our urban limit lines, we would have to pay twice. Mr. Roush read the following from the agreement: "LAVWMA shall be limited to a combined maximum flow of 32.42 MGD average dry weather in~uent flow to the LAVWMA member agency treatment plant from the combined LAVWMA member service areas as defined by the urban limit lines." He stated that it does suggest that flow is measured to the LAVWMA member agency treatment plants. So if you had a San Francisco operated treatment plant on its property that was operated by San Francisco, it presumably wouldn't count. 06/06/95 24