Palo Alto committee receives One Water plan; UAC urged council to reject acceptance

Palo Alto staff presented a 20‑year One Water planning study and an accompanying Excel‑based scenario tool intended to help the City evaluate water supply and conservation options through 2045. The Climate Action & Sustainability Committee voted to receive the study and an attached letter from the Utility Advisory Commission (UAC) and to forward the materials to City Council as an information item.

Carla Daley, assistant director of utilities, described the One Water plan as a planning framework rather than a detailed feasibility study: “The study is not a detailed feasibility analysis,” Daley said, adding that the tool is “very easy to change” so staff can rerun scenarios as regional assumptions shift.

The plan brings previously separate pieces of water planning together — conservation programs, groundwater readiness, regional partnership options, and larger alternatives such as desalination or direct potable reuse — and evaluates portfolios using four criteria: reliability, cost, ease of implementation and environmental benefits. Daley said all portfolios included stepped‑up conservation measures and that a 20‑year study horizon (2025–2045) and an accompanying “bookend” approach were used to test high‑stress scenarios.

Public commenters and the UAC urged more scrutiny of the study’s underlying drought assumptions. Peter D., who identified himself as policy director for the Tuolumne River Trust, said the plan rests on a “fatal flaw” — reliance on a 50% rationing scenario the city received from its wholesale supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. “That's an arbitrary manufactured political number,” he said, arguing the SFPUC’s design drought assumptions are unusually severe and that the city should demand alternative scenarios and probability information from the SFPUC.

David W., a member of the public who identified his background in finance in comments, said he admires Daley's work but recommended the committee reject the One Water plan to signal the need for probability‑based scenario data from SFPUC. Chris Tooker, a Utility Advisory Commission member speaking in a personal capacity, said the UAC unanimously recommended the council vote against accepting the report; he characterized the study’s methodology as “potentially misleading” and said the lack of alternative drought and demand scenarios from SFPUC undermines the tool’s foundation.

Staff and committee members discussed differences between “receive” and “accept.” Brad Eggleston, public works director, said staff deliberately proposed the committee “receive” the product — meaning the committee would not be endorsing the work product but would acknowledge its existence and the substantial work that went into it. Daley said staff expect the tool and its weights to be updated as new demand forecasts and regional planning information become available.

Committee members and staff noted several near‑term events that could change the tool’s inputs: an expected SFPUC update in 2027 on alternative water supplies; BAWSCA’s regional Strategy 2050 effort; and Valley Water’s option on roughly half the effluent from the regional water quality control plant that runs through 2032. Daley said some regional projects previously under study have been paused and that any Palo Alto project that would rely on regional effluent reuse would likely need to be handled at a regional scale.

The committee voted 3–0 to receive the One Water staff report and the UAC letter and forward them to City Council as an information item with no council action requested. Roll call on the motion recorded council members voting yes: “Council member Burt? Yes. Chair Rinker? Yes. Council member Lue? Yes. Motion carries 3‑0.”

Ending: Staff said the tool is intended to be revisited as demand forecasts and regional supply analyses evolve; several committee members asked staff to ensure the UAC’s critiques are considered before staff relies on the tool for any later recommendations to City Council.