Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 03-26-92 62 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON MARCH 26, 1992 This District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in an adjourned regular session at the Velvet Turtle, 100 Chilpancingo Parkway, Pleasant Hill, County of Contra Costa, State of California, at 6:30 p.m. on March 26, 1992, for a joint meeting of the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County. The Secretary of the District noted the attendance of the following Board Members: PRESENT: Members: Boneysteele, Starita, Rainey ABSENT: Members: Clausen, Dalton Members Clausen and Dalton had previously advised that they would be unable to attend this meeting. 1. INTRODUCTIONS Chair Wallis welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County. The representatives of each agency and members of the public attending the meeting introduced themselves. 2. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 23. 1992 MINUTES There being no corrections or additions, the minutes of January 23, 1992, were approved as mailed. 3. UPDATE ON TRI-VALLEY WASTEWATER AUTHORITY (TWA) PROJECT Mr. Bob Whitley, of Whitley, Burchett & Associates, stated that Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) is a regional solution for a wastewater treatment and disposal problem. Technical solutions to the problem are being considered. The role of public utilities and sanitary districts in growth management is being analyzed. Finally, the feasibility of the regional facilities concept is being tested. Mr. Whitley stated that TWA is a Joint Powers Authority comprised of the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, Dublin San Ramon Services District, and Alameda County. TWA was formed in 1986 to plan for future facilities to address future devplopment and growth. The proposed TWA Project will: 1 ) Serve the needs of the member agencies by acting as a whoJesale ~ervice provider; Serve the needs of the General Plan of the Cities aró \:our.ty in the area; 2) 3) Ensure that the final project developed is environmental!.¡ benign; and 4) Develop a cost effective and efficient system, but not necessarily the cheapest system. Mr. Whitley stated that the following alternatives are being considered: 1 ) Expansion of treatment plants and new pipelines for secondary effluent paralleling the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management Authority (LAVWMA) system; 2) Expansion of treatment plants and new pipelines for secondary effluent into existing or new outfall in East Bay Dischargers Authority; 0.3 -26 9'2 63 3) A new pipeline for untreated wastewater to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) for treatment and discharge to Suisun Bay; and 4) Cooperation with Zone 7 Pleasanton Dublin Water Agency with regard to the role of water recycling in the valley. Mr. Whitley stated that TWA is looking at firm disposal capacity for treatment and disposal to satisfy water quality criteria in the Bay system. As part of the EIR process, TWA conducted a major water Quality analysis of the entire San Francisco Bay System to the Delta. Modeling was used to analyze the movement of the water and water quality. The work was done by RMA and Larry Walker & Associates. Mr. Whitley reviewed the results of the water quality impact analyses at the various water intakes, noting that the impacts on water quality were infinitesimal. There was no significant impact on water quality from the worse case condition of the combined TWA/CCCSD project. Mr. Whitley stated that as part of the planning process that has occurred over the past five years or so, the Cities and County have been undergoing amendments to General Plans. Projections have been made as to build out. The valley population could increase from 148,000 people to 349,000 people. The impacts of that kind of growth on the valley and all the surrounding areas have been evaluated in the EIR because the previous TWA EIR was challenged on the position that the project just accommodated growth and did not create or induce growth. The question for utilities is whether or not to proceed with developing the necessary infrastructure. In looking at the role of infrastructure in adequate planning, it has been found that: 1 ) Sewer infrastructure must be accompanied by development of water supply infrastructure to induce growth, although the reverse is not true. 2) Infrastructure can affect location and timing of development. 3) Infrastructure, by itself, is not sufficient to induce economic growth. 4) Transportation and communication networks will have the major impact on communities. 5) Although infrastructure does not induce growth, it does remove an obstacle to growth. With regard to regionalization, Mr. Whitley stated that the question is good planning versus control by others versus the question of who will control development in a particular area. Mr. Whitley submitted to the Sanitation and Water Agencies, that water and sanitary districts that represent multi cities and counties are actually becoming the focal points of regional government. He expressed the opinion that utility providers should not be expected to control growth. Mr. Bob Baker, of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, stated that Central San has a primary goal of providing the best possible service for the lowest possible cost. Costs are continuing to go up as districts try to meet new regulations. The specific issue with regard to TW A is economy of scale. It has been documented that the cost per household to run large agencies is significantly less than the cost per household to run smaller agencies. For example, it has been calculated that the benefit to CCCSD ratepayers from the contract with the City of Concord is approximately $20 per household per year. Mr. Baker reported that the comment period for the TWA EIR closes tomorrow, March 27, 1992. Some negative comments have been received relating to three areas: 1) water quality, 2) capacity, and 3) growth. If CCCSD enters into an agreement with TWA, CCCSD will continue to provide the current high level of sewage treatment, and TWA will help pay for the cost of that treatment. Studies were done to determine whether the CCCSD system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed TWA project. A 40 MGD limit has been set for TWA capacity. The San Ramon Valley Pipeline is the limiting factor. The maximum dry weather flow capacity required by TWA is 26 MGD; however, it is doubtful that they will 03 26 92 64 ever reach that amount. TWA will provide holding/retention basins in Alameda County to take additional flow during rain storms if necessary. . The growth issue is more difficult. CCCSD traditionally has taken the customary public utility approach to growth. That is, the District provides a service and does not have land use planning and growth control powers as do cities and counties. The proposed TWA Project is somewhat unique in that it involves two counties. Questions have been raised: Should CCCSD use its veto authority of the TWA Project to control growth because the regulatory structure does not exist between counties to decide those issues? If CCCSD says no, will it affect long-term growth in Alameda County? Mr. Whitley stated that the restriction on the size of the LA VWMA system has not had an impact on growth in the valley. Growth has still occurred. Mr. Whitley reviewed the project schedule, stating that the EIR review period closes March 27, 1992. TWA is expected to certify the EIR in May 1992. Staff is working on the business terms of an agreement with CCCSD. It is expected that in mid-summer, CCCSD will conduct a hearing on the EIR as a responsible agency and subsequent to that the agreement will be ratified by both Boards. By fall 1992, it is hoped that the final agreement will be approved. Discussion followed concerning other outfalls flowing into Suisun Bay, implications of implementing a mass emissions concept for complying with water quality objectives, the ultimate capacity of the LA VWMA system and when it is expected to be reached. Chair Wallis thanked Messrs. Whitley and Baker for their presentations. 4. DROUGHT UPDATE a. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT Mr. Wallis, of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), reported that there has been about 400,000 acre feet of runoff. That is equivalent to EBMUD's annual needs. Reservoirs are approximately 60 percent of normal and still in a drought condition. In April, the EBMUD Board of Directors will consider the situation and determine whether conservation efforts must continue. b. CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT Mr. Austin Nelson, of Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), reported that CCWD water is supplied by contract from the Central Valley Project (CVP). Last year, CCWD came in slightly under the total available to the District. It is expected that the amount will be approximately the same for the coming year. CCWD is in the process of augmenting the CVP water from the Water Bank. It appears that conservation efforts will continue in the coming year. c. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT Mr. Bert Michalczyk, of Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), stated that Zone 7 is the wholesaler for Dublin San Ramon Services District. DSRSD will be able to meet 100 percent of its needs based on delivery of water from the State Water Project. The State Water Project has asked that SDRSD keep the conservation message before its customers in an effort to maintain 10 percent conservation. In addition, DSRSD is a party to a Memorandum of Understanding on Urban Water Conservation in California. 5. SAN FRANCISCO BAY BASIN POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS Mr. Lew Jones, of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and member of the Regional Board's Waste Minimization Task Force, reported that the Regional Board Basin Plan now contains a chapter on waste minimization. This will apply to all agencies that have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. A Waste Minimization/Source Reduction Program must be filed by targeted Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) by July 1992. This program will include: 03 26 92 65 1 ) Enhancement of existing pretreatment programs; 2) Waste minimization audits; 3) Increasing commercial regulations; 4) Public outreach and education; and 5) Monitoring Programs. Some POTWs are currently regulating some commercial producers, and others are moving in that direction. What has generally been considered a pretreatment program is expanding significantly. Mr. Marv Lindorf asked if the cost on upstream businesses for compliance with this program is being considered. Mr. Jones stated that it has been discussed, but it is far better to establish a process where the waste is not produced at all. The Regional Board is looking to POTWs to establish programs that will encourage industries to take that step. Chair Wallis thanked Mr. Jones for his presentation. 6. PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TRANSFER FROM SPECIAL DISTRICTS Chair Wallis indicated that the agenda packet included a fact sheet, sample press release, and sample letter to legislators opposing the Governor's proposed property tax revenue shift from special districts. A letter from the Sanitation and Water Agencies to Governor Wilson opposing the proposed transfer has been drafted and distributed for consideration. It was moved by Ms. Susan McNulty Rainey, of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, and seconded by Mr. Theodore Wooten, of West Contra Costa Sanitary District, that the draft letter from the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County to Governor Wilson opposing the proposed property tax revenue transfer from special districts, be approved as drafted. Following discussion, the motion was unanimously approved. Staff was directed to list the membership of the Sanitation and Water Agencies on the letter. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Dave Requa, of Contra Costa Water District, announced that the Environmental Impact Report on the Los Vaqueros Project will be released the week of March 30, 1992. The project is on budget and on schedule. Mr. Bill Braga, of West Contra Costa Sanitary District, announced that a recent West Contra Costa Sanitary District newsletter contained a section which allowed the reader to express opposition to the proposed property tax revenue shift. The reader had to cut the article out, and address and stamp an envelope. Already several hundred readers have responded. 8. DEVELOP AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING It was suggested that Mr. Dave Requa, of Contra Costa Water District, provide an update on the Los Vaqueros Project at the next meeting. Any other suggestions should be submitted to Ms. Joyce Murphy at Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 689-3890. 03 26 92 66 03 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Wallis adjourned the meeting at the hour of 8:00 p.m. Dinner was served immediately following the business meeting. £7 / / President of the Board of Direct Central Contra Costa Sanitary strict, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: S c et y of the Central Co ra Co a Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California 26 92