Contra Costa Water District and East Bay MUD brief Walnut Creek council on supply, infrastructure and resilience

Ernesto Avila, president of the Contra Costa Water District, and Luz Gomez, Ward 2 director for the East Bay Municipal Utility District, briefed the Walnut Creek City Council on April 15 about regional water supply, infrastructure projects and emergency planning.

Avila told the council that Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) supplies treated water across the region and that “we get about 99% of our water from the Bureau of Reclamation” via the Central Valley Project. He said CCWD serves about 520,000 people in its service area and that Los Vaqueros Reservoir and Lake Shasta are key supply indicators. Avila described an aging open‑channel Contra Costa Canal — roughly 80 years old — as driving current planning and financing needs, and estimated the canal replacement program could top $1.5 billion. He said CCWD has already piped nearly five miles of the first reach and runs a pipeline renewal program replacing about three to four miles of pipeline each year.

Gomez, who represents Ward 2 on East Bay MUD’s board, said East Bay MUD serves about 1.4 million customers, maintains roughly 4,200 miles of pipe and operates seven reservoirs and six treatment plants. “Right now, we’re doing really well, thanks to a robust rainy season. We are at about 103% of the average amount of fullness for all of our system,” she said, noting the agency expects reservoirs to remain near full through the end of the water year on Sept. 30.

Both speakers described climate change effects on water operations. Avila said Delta inflows are increasingly episodic — heavy bursts rather than steady rain — forcing managers to capture water when it arrives and to operate multiple intakes and pumps. Gomez described impacts to water quality from wildfires and algal blooms and identified the Walnut Creek Water Treatment Plant pre‑treatment project as the district’s major local investment; she said Phase 1 construction is planned to begin in 2027, and that Phase 2 would expand capacity if future demand and quality trends require it.

Avila outlined CCWD preparedness steps taken since 1995, including about $130 million on seismic and reliability improvements, redundancy between treatment plants and coordination with fire agencies and refineries. He said the canal has significant operational challenges — landslides during big storms and an estimated roughly 10% water loss along the open canal due to leaks — and that piping the canal would be a multi‑generational project meant to reduce losses and improve safety.

Gomez described East Bay MUD emergency measures including backup power for facilities, a fleet of portable generators to respond to Public Safety Power Shutoffs, watershed management (grazing, fuel breaks and prescribed burns) to reduce wildfire risk, reservoir pre‑filling on red flag days for firefighting, and testing and maintenance of about 31,000 hydrants. She also noted invasive species risk after the golden mussel was found in the Delta; East Bay MUD has closed boat ramps and urged public reports to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Both agencies discussed alternative supplies. Avila said CCWD currently provides about 10% recycled water regionally and expects recycled water to grow toward roughly 15% over 15–20 years; Gomez said East Bay MUD participated in a regional evaluation of desalination and is watching direct potable reuse regulations. Gomez also said East Bay MUD’s recent cost‑of‑service study indicates modest rate increases are likely: “The median single family residential water bill will increase by about 12¢ per day, in fiscal year 26, and by about 14¢ per day in fiscal year 27.”

Council members asked about groundwater use (both agencies said groundwater is a very small share of local supply), how the CCWD canal replacement would affect the canal right‑of‑way (pipeline alignment will reduce the footprint but require continued maintenance access), and why Walnut Creek is served by two separate districts (a historical pattern of earlier service boundaries and mergers). Both agencies encouraged public tours of treatment facilities and provided web addresses for rebates and conservation programs.

The presentation closed with council members thanking the agencies for the update and noting follow‑up opportunities on rate and project details as those items move through the agencies’ public processes.