AgdaPkt 2005-12-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�,� 3� Group # 3: Questions about the content of the UWMP draft a) Resident went to the second UWMP Community Dialogue meeting. He was told the information wouid be presented to the {PWS} Water Dept. [staff]. Was it? As part of the Public Works Services Department's commitment to on-going employee training and education, the director will present the UWMP and debrief department staff on the City Council's deliberations and decisions, following the Dec. 19 Council meeting. b) Can gray water be used on our own property? Yes. The City has no regulatory authorify over the residential use of gray water. Once drinking water is sold to customers, it's their water, and they can use it as they want to — and they should to exercise good practices for the safe and e�cient use of this untreated water resource. Group # 3: Concerns about the plan in its current form a) The UWMP was not readily available at designated locations such as the Library and City Hall. The Library only had one copy and would not let patrons copy it. City Hall also only had one copy See response to Group 1-a) above. b) The number one concern at the 2nd meeting [in September] was finding additional sources of water supply. This is not reflected in the UWMP draft. The City's ability - or lack thereof - to pursue other sources of water supply is discussed in the Draft UWMP, Chapter 3. StafPs position has been that options for additional water supply will be increasingly limited and costly, and that Redwood City's best policy direction is to assume that no addition supply on drinking water will be available, therefore we should maximize the benefits of local/regional conservation and water recycling. However, constant vigilance in watching for new possibilities is important: The added UWMP Executive Summary speaks to this. c) The "Buffer" [in water demand vs. supply] is not clear. Numbers are not matching up with tables. It is not obvious that RWC is working to establish a buffer. Not identified in the document as a buffer. The newly compiled Execufive Summary and its Table ES-1 — based on revised and refined projections - shows that Redwood City can manage its way into a positive difference between supply from SF and demand, reaching nearly 1,000 AF/yr by 2015, and falling off to approx. 500 AF/yr by 2030. Staff will recommend to the Council that good stewardship of the City's future water supply should include a positive gap as is shown, and that not allocating the entire water supply to existing and future customers is good public policy. d) RWC is already conserving water. How are we to handle a 20% cutback [in the next drought, and how can we secure more] reliability? The refined water reliability chapter of the UWMP illustrates that Redwood City will be able to manage a short-term, 10% reduction shortage. However, making the leap to a second-year or sustained 20% cutback will be difficult to achieve and very damaging to the community's landscape investment. The newly-compiled Executive Summary and companion staff report for the Dec. 19 Council meeting highlight the importance of persuading the SFPUC to seriously consider and study the benefits and costs associated with a 90% level of regional supply reliability, in lieu of 80% e) If everyone cuts back will there be enough flow to move sewage? In a drought, water use cutbacks result in lower flows in the sanitary sewer system, which drains by gravity. The use of more efficient toilets with lower gallons per flush also decreases flow. The City's sewer system is in better condition now as many 4of6