Zone 7 Meeting - January 21, 2026

Director Palmer moved to approve the minutes of the regular Board meeting held on December 17, 2025. The motion was seconded by Director Benson and approved by a voice vote of 7-0.

Item 8 -

8. Consent Calendar

Director Benson moved to approve Consent Calendar Items 8a and 8b. The motion was seconded by Director Palmer and approved by a roll-call vote of 7-0.

Item 9 -

9. Workshop on Board Policy for Conducting Business >

Rebecca Smith, General Counsel, provided an overview of the Board Policy on Conducting Business that was updated and adopted by the Board in 2025. She explained that the policy had not been revised in many years and was modernized to update legal references, clarify expectations, reduce unnecessary language, and better reflect current governance practices. Ms. Smith emphasized that while the policy memorializes how the Board operates, it is not intended to replace or supersede other applicable legal requirements, including conflict of interest laws, public contracting requirements, the Brown Act, and other statutory obligations.

Ms. Smith reviewed the primary topics covered in the policy, including the role of the Board and Board leadership, principles of conduct, meeting procedures and order of business, Board and staff responsibilities, and references to legal duties and enforcement. She reiterated that the Board acts as a collective body and is the sole authority to take action on behalf of the Agency, with individual Directors exercising authority only when specifically delegated by Board action. The Board's role is to establish policy, set priorities, provide strategic direction, ensure fiscal oversight and public accountability, and hire and evaluate the General Manager. She noted that while the Board's expertise is valued, operational decisions remain the responsibility of management, with the General Manager serving as the Board's direct employee and point of accountability.

Ms. Smith outlined Board governance and leadership practices, including the annual selection of officers, the responsibilities of the Board President in presiding over meetings, managing agendas, and appointing committees, and the advisory role of committees. She explained that committees operate with less than a quorum, do not take action on behalf of the Agency, and serve to review matters in greater detail before bringing recommendations back to the full Board.

The key principles of conduct outlined in the policy were reviewed, including preparedness, consistent attendance, professionalism, respect toward staff and the public, and maintaining focus on Agency business. Ms. Smith emphasized the importance of Directors clearly distinguishing personal opinions from official agency positions when interacting in the community. She also reiterated the requirement that Directors comply with ethics, conflict of interest, and open government laws.

Director Figuers commented on a provision in the policy allowing non-committee Board members to attend committee meetings as members of the public and asked whether this was a recent change. Valerie Pryor, General Manager, and Ms. Smith explained that while such attendance can be legally permissible, it is often discouraged due to perception concerns, and that quorum and notice requirements must be carefully observed. Ms. Smith noted that if attendance by additional Directors results in a quorum of the Board and Board business is discussed, the meeting must be properly noticed as a Board meeting.

Ms. Smith reviewed meeting procedures under the policy, emphasizing compliance with open meeting laws, transparency, and public participation. She explained the typical sequence for action items, including staff presentation, Board clarifying questions, public comment, Board discussion, and action. She cautioned Directors against expressing opinions or indicating voting positions prior to public comment. She also stressed the importance of consistent enforcement of public comment time limits and advised against engaging in extended dialogue with speakers during public comment, recommending that questions be referred to staff outside the meeting when appropriate.

The role of the Board in providing direction to staff was discussed, with Ms. Smith emphasizing that all requests should be communicated through the General Manager. She explained that this approach protects staff resources, ensures effective coordination, and provides valuable feedback to management regarding Board information needs. She noted that repeated requests from multiple Directors may indicate that an issue warrants further discussion at the committee or Board level.

Ms. Smith reviewed continuing education and legal responsibilities, including required ethics training under AB 1234 and upcoming financial training requirements. She noted that staff and legal counsel would assist in providing information and access to relevant training opportunities. She also reviewed the policy's provisions regarding enforcement and noted that violations of law, such as breaches of closed session confidentiality, may carry consequences beyond those outlined in the policy itself.

Discussion followed regarding the process for placing items on future agendas. Ms. Smith explained that matters raised during public comment cannot be acted upon unless agendized, and that Directors may request future agenda items either during the designated agenda section, subject to Board direction and vote, or by contacting the Board President, who would consult with the General Manager. She clarified that no substantive discussion occurs at the time of the request.

President Narum thanked Ms. Smith for the presentation and commended both staff and counsel for the quality and clarity of the updated policy. She noted that the policy was well prepared and expressed appreciation for the work completed, stating that she did not identify any provisions requiring further revision at this time.

Item 10 -

10. Authorize an Agreement with Dublin San Ramon Services District for Mocho Wellfield Water Quality Improvements >

Ms. Pryor introduced the item and provided an overview of the Mocho Wellfield Water Quality Improvements project, a significant effort to restore the Mocho wells to service and improve long-term water supply reliability. She noted that multiple actions will come before the Board as the project advances toward construction.

Brandon Woods, Senior Engineer, presented a detailed update on the Mocho PFAS Treatment Plant (MTP) project and its role in system reliability. He explained that Zone 7 relies on a combination of surface water and groundwater supplies, with groundwater accounting for up to 50 percent of total supply during dry years. He noted that approximately 80 percent of Zone 7's groundwater has been affected by PFAS, leaving only limited groundwater capacity available despite the construction of the Stoneridge and Chain of Lakes PFAS treatment plants. The Mocho wellfield, consisting of Wells 2, 3, and 4 and capable of producing up to 16 million gallons per day, currently exceeds PFAS regulatory limits and is fully offline. As a result, the Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Plant (MGDP) is also offline, preventing Zone 7 from meeting salt management goals and reducing overall system redundancy and reliability.

Mr. Woods described the objectives and scope of the MTP project, which include removing PFAS from the Mocho wellfield supply, restoring lost groundwater production, bringing the MGDP facility back online, enhancing salt removal, and replacing aging infrastructure. The project would include PFAS treatment vessels, piping upgrades, electrical and instrumentation improvements, pump replacements, and site improvements, including trail preservation and visual screening. Preliminary cost estimates range from $35 million to $51 million and will be refined as design progresses. Approximately $1.2 million in grant funding has already been secured from the Department of Water Resources for electrical improvements, and additional funding opportunities are being explored.

Mr. Woods explained that staff is proposing the use of a progressive design-build (PDB) delivery method to expedite the project, reduce risk, and improve cost transparency. He outlined the two-phase PDB process, including selection of a design-build team, development of design to the 60 percent level, early procurement of long-lead items, establishment of a guaranteed maximum price, and subsequent construction, startup, testing, and commissioning. He noted that the PDB approach is expected to reduce the project schedule by six to twelve months.

Mr. Woods also reviewed progress on CEQA compliance, noting that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed and released for public comment on January 7, with the comment period ending February 11. Adoption of the CEQA document is anticipated at the May Board meeting. He discussed land acquisition efforts, explaining that the selected site for the project requires property interests from both the City of Pleasanton and DSRSD. He reported that staff has reached a preliminary agreement with DSRSD under which DSRSD would grant a non-exclusive easement for the project, formally decline a prior option to purchase Mocho Well 4, and grant a non-exclusive easement for continued use of the Camp Parks Brine Disposal Pipeline. The appraised value of the easement would be applied as DSRSD's financial contribution toward the project.

Mr. Woods summarized actions taken to date, including completion of a conceptual design report, selection of an owner's representative, issuance of a request for proposals for the PDB team, public outreach through a community meeting, and ongoing coordination with Pleasanton to secure remaining land rights. He outlined the anticipated project schedule, including upcoming Board actions for grant applications, PDB team selection, CEQA adoption, and future approvals related to early procurement and the guaranteed maximum price. Construction is anticipated to begin in late summer, with completion targeted for summer 2028.

Board members asked questions regarding coordination with DSRSD water supply agreements, routing of water between wells and treatment facilities, incorporation of the MGDP facility, project aesthetics, cost considerations, and preservation of an existing public trail through the site. Staff responded to questions and confirmed that trail access would be maintained to the extent feasible, with potential temporary closures during construction.

Andrew Turnbull provided public comment.

Director Palmer moved to approve the item, and Director Green seconded the motion. The motion to authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the Dublin San Ramon Services District for the Mocho Wellfield Water Quality Improvements was approved by roll call vote of 7-0.

Item 11 -

11. Update on the Regional Groundwater Facilities Improvement Project - Phase I Feasibility Study Results >

Ms. Pryor introduced the informational item and explained that staff, in partnership with the City of Pleasanton, completed Phase I of the Regional Groundwater Facilities Improvement Project, which consisted of a feasibility study. She emphasized that the item was for information only and did not include discussion of next steps or Board action. Ms. Pryor noted that Pleasanton would also need to complete its due diligence, after which staff from both agencies would collaborate on recommendations to be brought forward to their respective governing bodies at an appropriate time. She then introduced Colleen Winey, Acting Senior Geologist.

Ms. Winey provided an overview of the project and summarized its alignment with Zone 7's Strategic Plan goals related to reliable water supply and infrastructure, safe water, and groundwater management. She reviewed the project workflow, noting that the Board previously received updates on yield testing and water quality results in June, groundwater modeling in September, and that the feasibility study was finalized in December. The project was a joint effort with the City of Pleasanton and included drilling exploratory borings and constructing test wells at three Pleasanton city parks, conducting yield and water quality testing, running groundwater model scenarios to evaluate sustainability and PFAS mobilization, and developing a feasibility study and preliminary basis of design with cost estimates.

Ms. Winey explained that the project focused on potential new wells in the Bernal Subbasin in Pleasanton, all located within city parks. She noted that the Hopyard wellfield has not been impacted by PFAS and already routes water to the Hopyard chloramination facility, making it a logical centralized treatment location for any future wells. She also explained that the area previously supported more wells than are currently operating, as one well was taken offline due to arsenic and another due to mechanical issues, meaning new wells could be considered replacement capacity rather than expansion. Testing results showed favorable production estimates and non-detect levels for PFOS and PFOA, with only low-level detections of PFHxS in limited screened intervals well below state and federal thresholds. Groundwater modeling stressed the system beyond anticipated operating conditions and indicated the project would be sustainable without mobilizing existing PFAS contamination.

Jason Coleman of Luhdorff & Scalmanini Engineering presented the feasibility study results. He explained that the study integrated test well performance, groundwater modeling, and water quality data to evaluate whether a regional Zone 7-Pleasanton project could reliably supply up to 7,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater during drought conditions, including Pleasanton's 3,500 acre-foot groundwater production quota. Four project alternatives were evaluated, ranging from development at a single site to development at all three sites. Each alternative was assessed using pass/fail criteria, meeting the production target and maintaining groundwater sustainability and water quality, as well as weighted evaluation criteria including capital and operating costs, reliability and resilience, implementation schedule, community and environmental impacts, and future water quality and treatment risk.

Mr. Coleman reported that two of the four alternatives did not meet the 7,000 acre-foot per year production goal. Of the remaining options, the alternative involving two wells at Tennis Park and Hansen Park ranked highest overall due to its balance of reliability, cost, flexibility, and implementability. Estimated production values were based on 75 percent reliability assumptions, reflecting planned and unplanned outages, and would be refined during future production well testing. The feasibility study concluded that the two-well alternative was the preferred option, and a Basis of Design Report was subsequently prepared.

Darren Baune of Carollo Engineers summarized the Basis of Design Report for the recommended Tennis Park and Hansen Park well alternative. He described the proposed project components, which include two new groundwater wells, approximately 4,000 feet of new pipeline connecting the wells to the Hopyard chloramination facility, and upgrades to that facility. The pipeline would be installed underground, while wellheads would be housed in small buildings designed to blend into the park settings without perimeter fencing, similar to other Zone 7 facilities. Mr. Baune explained that final siting would require coordination with City of Pleasanton staff and Parks Department, including landscaping and access considerations. At the Hopyard facility, a new chloramination building would be added with expanded chemical storage and supporting system upgrades designed to keep the facility operational during construction.

Mr. Baune presented a Level 4 cost estimate for the project, with an estimated construction cost of approximately $30.2 million, inclusive of contingencies, escalation, and contractor overhead and profit. With engineering, legal, and administrative costs added, the total estimated project cost was approximately $42.3 million, with a potential range reflecting the early design level of the estimate.

Ms. Winey summarized the presentation, stating that the feasibility study confirmed the project is feasible, identified the two-well Tennis and Hansen Park alternative as the preferred option, and estimated drought-year production at more than 8,200 acre-feet per year at 75 percent reliability. She clarified that the cost estimate includes the wells, pipeline, and chloramination facility upgrades only, and does not include potential downstream transmission or distribution system upgrades, nor any cost-sharing arrangements with the City of Pleasanton. She noted that Zone 7 and Pleasanton staff would continue reviewing the study findings and develop recommendations for future Board consideration.

During Board discussion, Directors asked questions regarding chemical storage quantities at the chloramination facility, pipeline installation, evaluation criteria weighting, benefits of a regional versus separate projects, groundwater model validation, PFAS plume behavior, and how the project fits into Zone 7's broader water supply diversification strategy. Staff and consultants explained that pipeline facilities would be underground, evaluation criteria and weightings were detailed in the feasibility study, the project had been analyzed solely as a regional effort, and that groundwater modeling, calibrated above industry standards, indicated sustainable operation without PFAS mobilization. Staff also noted that the project supports diversification within the groundwater basin by expanding production across subbasins, improving reliability during extended drought conditions.

Public comment was provided by Jim Lehrman. No Board action was taken.

Item 12 -

12. Authorize General Manager to Approve Reassignment of Sites Reservoir Capacity among Project Participants >

Ms. Pryor explained that Zone 7 is a participant in the Sites Reservoir Project, which remains under evaluation as a potential future water supply. She noted that additional Board workshops on Zone 7's participation are anticipated later in the year as the Agency approaches a final decision. The item before the Board was not specific to Zone 7's allocation, but rather related to a provision in the Sites Reservoir Project Agreement that allows project participants to reassign storage capacity among themselves, subject to written consent from all other participants.

Ms. Pryor reported that at the December Sites Joint Powers Authority meeting, a reassignment of approximately 6,200 acre-feet of storage capacity from Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage Replenishment District to Santa Clara Valley Water District was approved. As a result, Zone 7 and the other participants were asked to provide written consent. She explained that Board authorization was required for this consent and recommended that the Board also delegate authority to the General Manager to approve similar future reassignments, provided they are administrative in nature and do not have financial or operational impacts on Zone 7. She further noted that as the project progresses, other similar administrative actions, such as time extensions or reassignment of alternatives without cost impacts, may arise, and she requested that such actions also be delegated to the General Manager to streamline administration.

Director Figuers requested that any such delegated actions be undertaken in consultation with the Board President, to which Ms. Pryor agreed. Director Green sought clarification regarding the nature of the reassignment transactions and expressed concern about delegating authority without sufficient oversight. Ms. Pryor explained that the negotiations occur directly between the participating agencies, with the Sites JPA only reviewing the amount of capacity reassigned, not the specific terms of the agreements. She emphasized that any reassignment would not involve Zone 7's capacity and that major decisions affecting Zone 7 would continue to be brought to the Board.

Directors expressed general support for streamlining administrative actions, provided they do not affect Zone 7's rights, finances, or operations. Directors Palmer and Narum supported the delegation, noting the benefit of avoiding frequent Board actions on minor administrative matters. Rebecca Smith, General Counsel, provided additional context, explaining that the project is entering a phase where more reassignment requests are expected as agencies evaluate updated cost estimates and prepare for final decisions. She stated that the proposed delegation would not alter Zone 7's legal or financial obligations and would allow the Agency to remain a responsive partner while keeping the Board informed.

Director Gambs requested additional background regarding the relevant agreement language and expressed concern about ensuring the reassignments were neither permanent nor a "blank check" affecting Zone 7's allocation. Ms. Pryor and Ms. Smith clarified that Section 11 of the Sites Reservoir Project Agreement requires written consent for any reassignment and that the delegation would be limited strictly to administrative actions with no impact to Zone 7. Ms. Pryor further explained that agencies are closely scrutinizing their participation due to upcoming final decisions, including execution of a 50-year agreement and associated debt service commitments.

Ms. Pryor also clarified that while a waiting list exists for non-participating agencies, current participants may reassign capacity among themselves prior to final decisions, subject to required approvals. She confirmed that any matters affecting Zone 7 would continue to be brought before the Board and that updates could be provided through the General Manager's report.

Following discussion, a motion was made by Director Palmer and seconded by Director Green to authorize the General Manager to approve the reassignment of Sites Reservoir capacity among project participants and to delegate authority for similar administrative actions, consistent with the limitations discussed. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.

Item 13 -

13. Committees

There were no Board comments on the Administrative or the Finance Committee meeting notes.

Item 14 -

14. Reports - Directors

President Narum reported that she attended the flood management workshop in Dublin and noted that Zone 7 staff represented the Agency well and were well prepared. Director Green reported that she also attended a flood management workshop in Pleasanton and echoed President Narum's comments, stating that Zone 7 staff consistently do an excellent job presenting on behalf of the Agency. Director Benson likewise reported attending the Pleasanton workshop and thanked staff for their availability, preparedness, and assistance in answering questions.

Director Palmer reported that on January 5, she and President Narum attended the Alameda County Planning Commission meeting regarding the Arroyo Lago EIR. She also reported attending the ACWA Board video conference on January 7, noting that ACWA continues its search for a new Executive Director. Director Palmer further reported that she submitted her candidacy for a vacant position on the ACWA Executive Committee, with the election scheduled for January 30. Additionally, she reported attending the Alameda County Special District Association general meeting, where topics included recycling, wastewater, and solid waste issues. She concluded by noting an upcoming Special District Association dinner scheduled for March 19 and a regular membership meeting planned for May 13.

Item 15 -

15. Items for Future Agenda - Directors

There were no requests for items for a future agenda.

Item 16 -

16. Staff Reports

Ms. Pryor highlighted an informational item included in Item 16a regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). She emphasized that Zone 7's drinking water is PFAS-free and reiterated the Agency's commitment to providing clean, safe water. Ms. Pryor noted that although Zone 7 water does not contain PFAS, public concern can arise due to media coverage or reports of PFAS found in other consumer products or facilities. To address these concerns, Zone 7 maintains a dedicated PFAS webpage and periodically provides comprehensive Board presentations outlining the Agency's monitoring and management efforts. She explained that these presentations serve to educate both the Board and the community and remain available on the website as a long-term resource. Ms. Pryor encouraged Board members to direct constituents with questions to the PFAS information and presentation links referenced in the staff report.

Director Green thanked Ms. Pryor for the clarification and emphasized the importance of continuing to communicate that Zone 7's drinking water does not contain PFAS, noting that misconceptions persist among the public and that the message bears repeating.

Item 17 -

17. Adjournment

President Narum adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m.

You are here

Zone 7 Meeting - January 21, 2026

Site Search