Paradise council hears recommendation for hybrid gravity–STEP sewer, land-discharge ponds for Phase 1

Paradise Town Council on July 10 received an informational update on the Paradise Sewer Project in which staff and an ad hoc committee recommended pursuing a hybrid collection system—gravity trunk mains along major corridors paired with individual on-site STEP (septic tank effluent pump) connections in low-lying neighborhoods—and using land-application/percolation-evaporation ponds for Phase 1 disposal.

The ad hoc committee presented alternatives analysis, cost estimates and a funding summary and recommended two main treatment options for further study: an aerated-lagoon (pond) system and a membrane bioreactor (MBR). Mark Maddox, the town's public works director and town engineer, told the council the presentation was informational and that "no formal action is being recommended taking tonight," and that staff expects to return Aug. 14 with a recommendation for council direction.

Why it matters: the sewer project is a linchpin for Paradise's recovery after the 2018 Camp Fire and for attracting businesses and housing to downtown. The town has limited disaster-recovery and grant funding available now; staff warned delays could reduce the ability to use congressional and CDBG-DR funds. "This is a critical moment," Maddox said, noting a mix of secured and probable funds but a remaining funding gap.

What the ad hoc committee recommended and why: Lisonbee McReynolds, the HDR lead on the project, summarized technical work that examined full-gravity, full-STEP (low-pressure) and hybrid systems. The hybrid concept would place shallower gravity mains down Skyway, Clark and Pearson corridors and allow some properties to connect via on-site STEP pumps where mains must be shallow due to existing utilities or topography. "A hybrid between the gravity and STEP sewer lets us maximize gravity where feasible while keeping the project constructable and scalable," McReynolds said.

Committee members and partners described the tradeoffs that led to the recommendation. Kevin Phillips, district manager for the Paradise Irrigation District (PID), said PID will remain an advisory partner and that the hybrid approach addresses PID's priorities of affordability and expandability: "We wanna make sure it's affordable to our community, that it's attainable, that we can actually get this project done, and that it's expandable." Clint Snyder of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board said simpler approaches are easier to permit and operate and voiced support for the committee's recommendation.

Treatment and discharge options: the committee narrowed treatment technologies for further study to two approaches. An aerated-lagoon (pond) option is the least complex and has lower operation-and-maintenance costs but requires the largest land footprint. An MBR package plant yields higher effluent quality (potentially easing future reuse or surface-water discharge) and a much smaller footprint but has higher capital and energy costs and more complex operations. The regional water board advised avoiding surface-water discharge for Phase 1 because of the high treatment, monitoring and permitting burden and potential penalties for permit violations; committee members therefore recommended land discharge (percolation/evaporation pond) for the near term and keeping reuse as a future-phase goal.

Costs, scope and funding: the team presented conceptual Class‑5 estimates for a Phase‑1 service area sized for a full build-out of about 100,000 gallons per day but expecting a startup flow closer to 40,000 gpd. Rough construction estimates for the conceptual Phase‑1 alternatives were about $114 million for a hybrid + pond approach and about $122 million for an MBR-to-pond option. Maddox listed currently identified and probable funding sources: $30,000,000 earmarked for preconstruction, $35,000,000 secured for construction from CDBG‑DR, a pending EPA grant of $1,750,000, monitoring of state SRF opportunities (staff cited about $28,000,000 of opportunities), and a $50,000,000 US Army Corps of Engineers authorization that requires congressional appropriation and likely suits a later phase. Staff said the sum of probable and available funds today is roughly $84,800,000 and that a funding gap remains.

Rates and affordability: council members reminded the public affordability is a central concern. The council previously adopted a conceptual rate-subsidy plan (operating reserve $1.2 million and $526,000 annual support for the first 10 years) to assist early utility operations. Maddox said the subsidy and rate structure will be revisited to reflect the Phase‑1 scope and final cost estimates.

Schedule and next steps: if council provides direction at the Aug. 14 meeting, staff plans to begin a supplemental environmental impact report (a follow-on to earlier programmatic work), complete siting and refined design, resume funding applications and procure a treatment designer; staff projected beginning construction in 2027 and completion in 2029, while noting the schedule is aggressive. "Further delays will reduce our ability to use critical CDBG‑DR funds," Maddox said.

Public response and concerns: the meeting drew robust public comment. Developers and local builders urged quick action but asked for clearer cost-per-parcel breakdowns and financing paths; one developer, Kelly Consulman of Paradise Affordable Homes RRA Builders, noted per-parcel cost calculations and asked how the business corridor could support necessary revenue. Some residents and advocacy groups favored STEP or constructed-wetland options because of lower upfront costs or smaller distributed footprints; Cliff Jacobson and the Paradise Citizens Alliance members argued STEP systems can work when well managed. Other commenters warned about ongoing operating costs, asked for annexation/land-use clarity if a treatment site is outside town limits, and pressed the council on timing, escalation of construction costs and who would bear the long-term O&M burden.

What was not decided: the council did not vote on a preferred alternative at this meeting; the presentation was informational and the council set an Aug. 14 special meeting for possible direction. Site selection for a treatment facility has not been decided; staff said siting alternatives will be evaluated in the supplemental EIR and that potential sites could include lower Skyway locations or other parcels, with LAFCO coordination if a site is outside town boundaries.

Where this leaves the town: the ad hoc committee recommended pursuing a hybrid gravity–STEP collection concept with further, parallel analysis of a pond-based treatment option and an MBR option, and to plan Phase‑1 disposal via land-application/percolation ponds while preserving future reuse possibilities. Council members emphasized the project’s role in downtown economic recovery and urged speed to construction. The council will consider formal direction on Aug. 14, with refined cost, siting and funding information expected before any formal commitment.