Dublin‑San Ramon Services District tells San Ramon council supply is stable but long‑term projects, PFAS treatment, recycled water expansion will cost millions

Representatives from the Dublin‑San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) briefed the San Ramon City Council on the district’s water supply portfolio, recycled water program, PFAS treatment work and energy projects, saying near‑term supplies are sufficient while several multi‑year infrastructure projects and partnerships are needed to improve long‑term resilience.

DSRSD board member Dinesh Govindrao and General Manager Jan Lee presented the district’s fiscal and operational overview, including a projected fiscal 2026 operating budget of about $106,000,000 in revenues and $91,000,000 in expenses. Govindrao said about three‑quarters of district revenue comes from service charges and the largest expense components are personnel and water purchases. He said connection fees and capital charges fund much of planned capital work.

Jan Lee outlined the district’s supply mix and near‑term outlook. She said roughly 75% of DSRSD’s delivered water is purchased from Zone 7 (a wholesale supplier for the Tri‑Valley), about 5% comes from groundwater and about 20% from recycled water. “Just cut to the chase. We’re doing well this year,” she said, citing Zone 7’s recent increase in its State Water Project allocation to roughly 50% (up from 40%), which translates to about 40,000 acre‑feet — roughly the Tri‑Valley’s annual demand.

Why it matters: DSRSD serves the Dougherty Valley and portions of Dublin and Pleasanton; its supply and treatment choices affect future development, rate pressure and how much wastewater is available for reuse instead of discharge to San Francisco Bay.

Key details from the presentation - Supply and storage: Officials noted the local groundwater basin has recovered after recent wet years. DSRSD and Zone 7 are evaluating a mix of projects to bolster resilience, including participation in Sites Reservoir. Lee said Zone 7’s expected share of Sites Reservoir capacity would yield roughly 10,000 acre‑feet for use in drought years if partners commit; construction decisions by partner agencies are expected in 2026 with potential operations in the early 2030s. - PFAS treatment: Lee said PFAS (per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been detected at low levels in Zone 7’s groundwater; treatment plants have been built and others are in design. She described a multi‑pronged approach in which Zone 7 is already operating facilities that meet the tighter standards the Environmental Protection Agency adopted for six PFAS compounds and that state and federal compliance timelines run through 2029. - Recycled water and Bay‑wide nutrient limits: DSRSD noted its recycled water program (a joint program with East Bay MUD) has grown substantially but the district placed a moratorium on new recycled‑water connections in 2019 after available recycled supply was fully allocated during peak months. A recently adopted regional permit that caps nutrient discharges and requires major nutrient reductions has increased interest in expanding recycled‑water use as a compliance tool. DSRSD said it is negotiating a long‑term agreement with Central San and East Bay MUD to make a temporary diversion permanent and expand supply; staff said they hope to resolve that agreement by year‑end so planned DERWA phases can proceed and the moratorium can be lifted. - Energy resiliency and costs: DSRSD reported it completed an energy facilities master plan and adopted an energy policy with targets to reduce electricity use and greenhouse‑gas emissions. The district’s capital program includes 14 energy projects totaling about $122,000,000 over 25 years, with roughly $75,000,000 expected in the next 10 years. Staff said a major component is replacing an aging cogeneration system at the wastewater plant — an estimated $44,000,000 item.

Council questions and public comment: Council members questioned the district about competition for State Water Project supplies, how Sites Reservoir would operate, the PFAS regulatory timeline and who will ultimately bear nutrient‑reduction costs. DSRSD and Zone 7 representatives said grant funding and state support have helped pay for PFAS treatment at earlier facilities, and they expect a mix of funding approaches for future compliance costs; staff emphasized that cost impacts vary by agency and that recycled water expansion could be a cost‑effective compliance option. One public commenter urged the city to reconsider installing artificial turf in parks because of PFAS concerns.

What’s next: DSRSD said it will continue work on the long‑term recycled‑water agreement with Central San and East Bay MUD, advance treatment facilities as needed for PFAS compliance and proceed with energy projects tied to the adopted capital program. City council members requested updates and asked staff to continue coordinating on conservation and outreach programs.

Ending: The presentation gave council members a detailed snapshot of DSRSD’s current finances, supply sources and infrastructure plans; officials characterized near‑term supply as adequate while flagging multi‑year capital and partnership efforts required to meet future regulatory and resilience goals.