Laserfiche WebLink
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FACILITIES PROJECT <br />FEASIBILITY STUDY <br /> <br /> 28 Zone 7 Water Agency <br />December, 2025 <br /> <br /> Table 8. Project Evaluation Scoring Summary <br /> <br />Alternative 1 <br />(Tennis Park <br />Only) <br />Alternative 2 <br />(Tennis/Hanse <br />n Parks) <br />Alternative 3 <br />(Tennis/Del <br />Prado Parks) <br />Alternative 4 <br />(Tennis/Hansen/De <br />l Prado Parks) <br />Criteria Descriptions Ra <br />w <br /> <br />S <br />c <br />o <br />r <br />e <br /> <br />We <br />i <br />g <br />h <br />t <br />e <br />d <br /> <br />Po <br />i <br />n <br />t <br />s <br /> <br />Ra <br />w <br /> <br />S <br />c <br />o <br />r <br />e <br /> <br />We <br />i <br />g <br />h <br />t <br />e <br />d <br /> <br />Po <br />i <br />n <br />t <br />s <br /> <br />Ra <br />w <br /> <br />S <br />c <br />o <br />r <br />e <br /> <br />We <br />i <br />g <br />h <br />t <br />e <br />d <br /> <br />Po <br />i <br />n <br />t <br />s <br /> <br />Ra <br />w <br /> <br />S <br />c <br />o <br />r <br />e <br /> <br />We <br />i <br />g <br />h <br />t <br />e <br />d <br /> <br />Po <br />i <br />n <br />t <br />s <br /> <br />Community & <br />Environmental Impacts 8 8.0 5 5.0 5 5.0 4 4.0 <br />Implementation <br />Schedule 9 13.5 8 12.0 8 12.0 7 10.5 <br />Operations & <br />Maintenance Cost 8 20.0 7 17.5 7 17.5 6 15.0 <br />TOTAL PROJECT SCORE 74.0 65.5 67.5 60.0 <br /> <br />Alternative 1 (Tennis Park Only) received the highest overall score (74.0), largely due to low capital cost, <br />straightforward implementation, and minimal community impacts. However, as a single-well <br />configuration, it cannot meet Zone 7’s minimum 7,000 AFY drought-year production target on its own and <br />therefore is not a viable stand-alone solution. <br />Alternative 2 (Tennis + Hansen) scored 65.5, ranking third overall but representing the highest-scoring <br />feasible alternative capable of meeting both agencies’ annual water production objectives. <br />Alternative 3 (Tennis + Del Prado) scored 67.5, benefiting from reduced PFAS risk but limited by lower <br />yield and higher cost and unable to meet Zone 7’s minimum 7,000 AFY drought-year production target <br />and therefore is not a viable project alternative. <br />Alternative 4 (Tennis + Hansen + Del Prado) scored lowest at 60.0 points, reflecting its significantly higher <br />capital and O&M costs and greater community impacts, principally only offering greater production and <br />operational flexibility/resilience. <br />While Alternatives 1 and 3 achieve relatively high total project scores, both alternatives are unable to <br />satisfy Zone 7’s minimum drought-year production target of 7,000 AFY and therefore do not meet a <br />fundamental project requirement. As a result, these alternatives are considered screening-level options <br />only and were not carried forward as implementable solutions, despite their favorable performance in <br />certain evaluation categories. <br />Among the alternatives that meet the minimum drought-year production requirement, Alternatives 2 and <br />4 represent feasible multi-well configurations. As illustrated in Figure 11, Alternative 2 provides a <br />comparatively high overall project score while maintaining a substantially lower estimated annual cost <br />than Alternative 4. Although Alternative 4 offers the greatest total production capacity and operational <br />redundancy, these incremental benefits are accompanied by significantly higher capital and annualized