Commentary: Lost in the Water Debate
Written by David Greenwald Sunday, 20 January 2013 08:38
Another multi-author commentary on the water project makes the argument, "If Davis fails to implement a conjunctive use project, the city would not be acting in a fiscally responsible manner."
Why, they argue? They write, "The city of Davis cannot sustain its present course of action. The city has been borrowing money on an existing line of credit to pay for its crumbling water infrastructure. This is because necessary water rate increases have been put on hold while decisions are being made on the best course of action."
They continue, "Wells had to be taken offline because of contamination or subsidence problems. This predicament will increase over time as existing wells continue to be taxed far beyond their intended life span. It can be extremely expensive and infeasible to treat existing wells out of compliance with regulatory standards."
In fact, one of the critical contentions by proponents of the project are that water rates will rise considerably, regardless of whether we do the surface water project or not.
"The days of cheap water are over," Elaine Roberts Musser told the Vanguard last week, and she is largely correct. The question is exactly how much we will have to pay.
The city continues to drag its feet at disclosing this critical information. We reported that Herb Niederberger suggested a 62% rate increase, absent the surface water project. We have seen other figures that suggest that number is actually far too low and we may be looking at the doubling of the rates.
Matt Williams cites data provided to the WAC by Bartle Wells on 4/2/2012. According to that data, the city's water revenues are just under $10 million per year. On the other hand, costs - and these do not include what we will owe to the JPA - are at $13 million.
Matt Williams writes, "The result was a $3 million draw down of the Water Enterprise Fund's reserves."
That presumably means we are borrowing $3 million per year from the city's sewer fund, which the city had accumulated because, on that side of the ledger, they planned ahead and banked funding for the wastewater upgrade.
What really should gall us, however, is that this $3 million per year in deficit spending does not include deferred maintenance. Matt Williams estimates we have to pay $37 million (which is nearly one-third of the cost of the surface water project) in capital expenses for repair and remediation of our current system.
If all of this leads you to scratch your head for a bit, there is a big question that is not being talked about here - exactly how did we get to this point?
The op-ed benignly suggests, "This is because necessary water rate increases have been put on hold while decisions are being made on the best course of action."
This is likely true in terms of the past year. If you recall, then-Councilmember (now Mayor Pro Tem) Dan Wolk made the motion, during the infamous September 6 decision, to have a one-time 10 percent water rate increase while allowing time to explore various options and approaches.
Three months later, Dan Wolk and then-Mayor Pro Tem (now Councilmember) Rochelle Swanson suggested directing staff to bring back a one-year Prop 218 motion, based on the needs to cover current deferred maintenance and ongoing needs, rather than being based on the surface water project.
Had the council followed Mr. Wolk's recommendations at either point in time, the city would be on more solid fiscal footing. Unfortunately, while the council rescinded the water rates, they failed to impose a rate increase that would have reduced deferred maintenance.
However, this is not the only point of error.
In May of 2010, the council at this point, still led by the council majority of Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza, made the determination to raise water rates only 5% rather than their originally-planned 10%.
They put off the heavy lifting at that time. They voted to approve a relatively modest 5% increase, but that number increased to a 23% increase in 2011/12, and then 20% for each of 2012/13 and 2013/14.
The projected numbers would only increase in the coming years, with it becoming clear that rates wouldn't double, they would triple. But, whatever you may think of the numbers proposed back then, they were never implemented other than the very small increase in 2010.
During May 2010, even the modest increase resulted in protest from those in the business community and those on fixed wages.
Stephen Souza and Don Saylor largely defended the proposals, based on changes to discharge requirements.
Then-Mayor Pro Tem Saylor said, "These rates are a reasonable way to capture the costs we are going to incur and experience during the next year."
He continued, "The rate changes that we have now, need to go forward now. It's a process that's been underway for some time and in order for them to be effective in August, it is my understanding that this is the time when we need to make that adoption."
"Here are the challenges," he said, "We have costs, it's a city service, it's not free. It's not a matter of us making choices that we want to charge people more money for some purpose. The idea here is pretty strong, delivering water and taking wastewater away and taking garbage away costs money. And it's costing more money and will in the future primarily because the standards changed and the water supply is lessening and becoming less quality."
Unfortunately, the council has been discussing the issue of a water project for some time. By the time the Vanguard arrived on the scene, the talks were already a decade old.
In 2007, discussion of the water project began in earnest, as we moved toward the eventual Woodland-Davis joint water project.
It has now been six years since the Vanguard published its first article on the water project, but the council never had the foresight to raise rates (other than the 5% increase in 2010) either to fund current maintenance or to bank for the eventual need for surface water.
The result is that we have built up an increasing amount of deferred maintenance, and we are borrowing money at the rate of $3 million per year against the wastewater project.
When the Vanguard spoke with some of the employees in public works last June, they told the Vanguard that the city's water system infrastructure was badly in need of repair.
Whatever your view of the city's surface water project is, this is not fiscal prudence or sound public policy. It represents mismanagement.
We have lost six years of time, at least, where we could have either built up the city's enterprise fund or at least kept up with deferred maintenance.
Back in 2010, Lamar Heystek, who was about to exit the council, had strong words for the proposed rate hikes at that time - which appeared to defer the heavy lifting and large rate increases to future councils. That is exactly what has happened.
But it is worse than just a political calculation, in fact. Not only did they defer difficult decisions, they allowed the situation and the city's wells and infrastructure to further deteriorate until we may have no choice but to replace it all.
There is a term in the world of development: demolition by neglect. In some ways, what has happened to the city's water system is beginning to resemble exactly that.
One of the questions the Vanguard has is not just how much the no-project option will increase water rates, but how much of this system will we have to upgrade and replace, on top of the surface water project.
---David M. Greenwald reporting
The City overspent money in the JPA project without asking the voters first, then set up a $10 million LOC at Wells Fargo to pay for their spending, then at the last minute they are trying to scare ratepayers into panicking and writing a blank check, again.
"Once we have the rate structure and current system repair and long term improvement plan in place, and we know whether, and how much, supplemental water we might need from a conjunctive use supplemental water supply system, we can publicize a Request for Proposals where the City reaches out to neighboring jurisdictions to enter into thoughtful, deliberate, and professional discussions for long term supply of those well-documented water needs," he adds
Perhaps you could help me understand a seeming discrepancy in your previously published statement above from December 2012 where you seem to acknowledge that there are current system repair costs, and your current statement "until this week, I have never heard of or read about our system falling apart" ?
One of the frequently seen aspects of a political discussion in Davis is that individual statements are taken as gospel, and the pendulum of the debate swings back and forth between rather extreme positions. There is a bit of that in David's article. when he states, "When the Vanguard spoke with some of the employees in public works last June, they told the Vanguard that the city's water system infrastructure was badly in need of repair."
I don't know who the employees were in public works, and as a result I don't know if they had an agenda when they spoke to the Vanguard, but based on the homework I have done and the information I have gathered, characterizing the city's water infrastructure as "badly in need of repair" is hyperbole. That kind of extreme statement belittles the hard work that the water department employees do each and every day to maintain the system.
Kennedy Jenks Consultants and Brown and Caldwell extensively assessed the system in 2011. Their 478 page report is available on the city website at http://public-works.cityofdavi...Report.pdf.
The bottom-line is that what has been done to date has resulted in a system that is in good condition, but that there is a need to do more in the future if the system is to be kept in that same good condition. The pay as you go capital budget for "doing more" is $37 million. Here are some excerpts from the report:
-- This Plan describes the hydraulic model tool, water demand projections, condition assessment, hydraulic evaluation, and recommended capital improvements.
-- The Plan presents recommended improvements that would deliver surface water throughout the City and address rehabilitation, replacement, and upgrades that are needed for the existing water system.
-- There are 180 miles of water distribution system pipelines – 2-in to 14-in in diameter
-- Major water distribution system assets were rated and ranked according to condition to provide a quantifiable basis for evaluating and prioritizing facility operations.
-- Water Distribution Pipelines Condition Assessment Findings
. . 1. Review of available records suggest the distribution system in general, is in good condition.
. . 2. 12-inch and greater diameter pipelines are in good condition as few repairs have been required.
. . 3. Pipeline deterioration rates should be expected to increase over the next 20 years as 58% of the City’s pipelines installed prior to 1970 continue to age.
-- Pipe repairs have averaged between 0.04 to 0.13 breaks per mile of pipe per year since 2003, which is a relatively low occurrence rate for a water utility. This indicates the distribution system is currently in good condition. It is recommended the City continue to gather specific factors causing breaks and monitor breaks per mile of pipe for trends, which will provide useful operational performance data and a gauge if the pipeline replacement program is adequate to maintain a water distribution system in good condition.
-- Overall, review of the available data suggests that the City’s 12-inch and 14-inch diameter water mains appear in good condition. There have been 4 recorded main failures on 12-inch diameter pipelines since 1977, representing about 1% of all recorded failures. There have been no recorded failures in the City’s 14-inch pipelines.
-- Pipeline deterioration rates should be expected to increase over the next 20 years as 58% of the City’s pipelines installed prior to 1970 continue to age.
-- The City’s current level of pipeline replacement is not keeping pace with the inventory of aging infrastructure.
-- The City’s current level of pipeline replacement is not keeping pace with the inventory of aging infrastructure.
-- The majority of pipeline failures is associated with cast iron pipe and have occurred in pipe installed prior to 1970.
-- Corrosion is a key contributing factor to pipe failure within the City.
If our present water system is really in the stage of crisis (that at least by implication has existed for many years) that is claimed by proponents of Measure I, why was is that no-one (not even opponents of Measure X) raised this issue during the Covell Village debate of 2004-2005? Surely, if things are/were as bad as they are made out to be Covell Village should have been defeated on grounds of a lack of water infrastructure alone. And, if the situation is so bad why has the Council continued to support steady growth? If it’s as bad as they claim, then there should have been a moratorium on growth long ago and until a new water supply system was in place. It’s also interesting to note that many of the leading supporters of Measure I were either supporters of Covell Village (and subsequent growth), or at least they sat on their hands when the issue came up.
Probably one reason this did not come out was precisely that - it would have interfered with the council majority's growth agenda if there was suspect sources of water. as i understand, the location of a well on site, allowed them to side step some of those issues.
Good question Herman, which is exactly why I posted the link to the 2011 Kennedy Jenks Consultants and Brown and Caldwell evaluation. The word "crisis" is not in any way supported by the expert evaluation of KJ and B&C, which said, "Overall, review of the available data suggests that the City’s 12-inch and 14-inch diameter water mains appear in good condition. There have been 4 recorded main failures on 12-inch diameter pipelines since 1977, representing about 1% of all recorded failures. There have been no recorded failures in the City’s 14-inch pipelines. However, pipeline deterioration rates should be expected to increase over the next 20 years as 58% of the City’s pipelines installed prior to 1970 continue to age.
That isn't a crisis. What that is a message that what Davis has been doing has been good to date (probably better than good), but that in the future Davis is going to have to do more.
matt: it should be noted that Herman, not David, used the term crisis.
what you posted seems consistent with the overall point that David was trying to make...
-- Pipeline deterioration rates should be expected to increase over the next 20 years as 58% of the City’s pipelines installed prior to 1970 continue to age.
-- The City’s current level of pipeline replacement is not keeping pace with the inventory of aging infrastructure.
-- The City’s current level of pipeline replacement is not keeping pace with the inventory of aging infrastructure.
-- The majority of pipeline failures is associated with cast iron pipe and have occurred in pipe installed prior to 1970.
-- Corrosion is a key contributing factor to pipe failure within the City.
GI, I completely agree with you, and stand corrected.
I didn't mean to take exception with David's funding points, only with the fact that (for reasons that may indeed be personal in nature) some people are taking the funding failure and extrapolating that out to say that the system itself is in a state of failure.
"Crisis" was indeed Herman's word. David made the point, "The result is that we have built up an increasing amount of deferred maintenance." According to David, "employees in public works told the Vanguard that the city's water system infrastructure was badly in need of repair."
To this reader, the KJ B&C assessment doesn't appear to support any of those three. What it does support in my opinion are your final words "while the system is still in good shape, it won't be in another 20 years."
The truth is that we do not know whether any significant maintenance has been deferred. We do know that reserve funds have been drawn down by $3 million to deal with the fact that expenses of $12.9 million exceeded revenues of $9.9 million.
With all the above said, it is very clear that if we make a decision now to not step up our investment in maintenance/repairs/replacement, then we will indeed be making a very bad mistake.
Davis wells, as of a couple of years ago: 
http://davismerchants.org/water/DavisWellInfo.png
Typical well life 30 - 50 years. Note dates wells were drilled.
We have added wells 32 - 34, all deep wells. Well 31 has distribution problems, interferes with a UCD well per my notes. My notes showed well 32 off-line. Things happen with wells.
By the way. the boron content of these new deeper wells is as high or higher than our existing intermediate wells.
Here's a chart showing what we're doing to reduce the selenium content of our water. 
http://davismerchants.org/water/Daviswells.jpg
The city is increasingly relying on the six deep wells because their selenium content is lower.
Note that we will be increasing our boron content somewhat this way.
This requires very heavy use of a much smaller number of wells, pumping them at a rate (hours per day) that is much higher than the others and will cause wear. Why not drill more deep wells? We can't. They interfere with UCD's use of that deeper water, and we have an agreement with UCD that precludes any more capacity (we can drill more wells if we want, but we can't pump more water than we already are).
If one of these new wells interferes, it will have to be taken off-line. Monitoring practices are in place, with thresholds set to trigger compliance.
So without the surface water we would be:
-- supplying the city from a much smaller number of wells.
-- running the risk of contamination of the deep aquifer.
-- running the risk of conflict with UCD use of that aquifer; they have priority.
-- continuing to maintain a small number of very old intermediate wells.
-- using the new wells at a very high pumping rate, increasing wear and tear.
-- getting water with a higher level of boron, which is a state-regulated constituent.
I have a major problem with the assertion of "demolition by neglect. In some ways, what has happened to the city's water system is beginning to resemble exactly that."
I do not believe it is anything of the sort. In fact it looks as if maintenance has been good, just the money to pay for it has been borrowed and that is not good. Nothing lasts forever and for things to last they need maintenance and sometimes replacement a little at a time. The idea of needing a clean sweep and to start over is a gross exaggeration and to me at least, very inflammatory. It's fine to try and put out a clear picture of what our needs are but to grossly exaggerate the situation is irresponsible. Nothings gets up my ire more than the concept of tear it down and start over because something was not maintained, whether it be a building or a water system. And don't get me wrong, I am not a proponent of irresponsible drilling and extraction just to keep water cost down. I am just trying in all this to find the balance between need and "pork"(as it has been referred) .
My use of the word “crisis” to describe the situation Davis allegedly faces, according to Measure I proponents, was based on: 1) The repeated posts of pro I advocates on the Vanguard; 2) On other materials written by Pro I advocates in the DE, including and especially, today’s Op-Ed. If you read this article and accept all that’s in it at face value “crisis” is hardly too strong a word. And if it is the case it is not an immediate crisis, but one that is impending, then why cannot (or was not) time be taken to: 1) Have a vote that would include a detailed description of the rate structure and inform voters how much their water bills will increase over the next five years; 2) To wait for accurate estimates as to the real costs of the projects so that we in fact have a real idea of how much it will cost and indeed how much water bills will go up. At the most this would have taken one year, and much less if CC had moved earlier. But no, instead there is this frantic rush to meet Woodland’s timetable regardless of any attempt to give Davis voters the ability to have a really informed vote on this hugely costly project. Either it is a crisis, or there is or was time to postpone the vote, or it is a manufactured “crisis.”
Either it is a crisis, or there is or was time to postpone the vote, or it is a manufactured “crisis.”
I do not see these as the only three possibilities. I think that it may simply be that some of us believe that there has been plenty of looking into, evaluating, weighing and measuring of options, and that it is now time to move forward.
Don Shor said . . .
"We have added wells 32 - 34, all deep wells. Well 31 has distribution problems, interferes with a UCD well per my notes. My notes showed well 32 off-line. Things happen with wells."
Good information Don.
Well 32 was off-line while they added the multi-million dollar magnesium treatment system to it before putting it into service. It is the well with the big white tank next to it underneath the Dave Pelz bicycle overpass on the south side of I-80 on Chiles.
Well 29 one of the new deep aquifer wells drilled in 1997 has now been abandoned due to the following problems, deep aquifer well, poor condition and produces sand, low overall efficiency, able to equip with a VFD, significant maintenance, space to add treatment if required, set-up for portable standby generator operation, moderate to high DWSAP rating, and low hardness, TDS, Se, Cr 6, and nitrates, and semi-high Arsenic.
Herman said . . .
"My use of the word “crisis” to describe the situation Davis allegedly faces, according to Measure I proponents, was based on: 1) The repeated posts of pro I advocates on the Vanguard; 2) On other materials written by Pro I advocates in the DE, including and especially, today’s Op-Ed. If you read this article and accept all that’s in it at face value “crisis” is hardly too strong a word. And if it is the case it is not an immediate crisis, but one that is impending, then why cannot (or was not) time be taken to: 1) Have a vote that would include a detailed description of the rate structure and inform voters how much their water bills will increase over the next five years; 2) To wait for accurate estimates as to the real costs of the projects so that we in fact have a real idea of how much it will cost and indeed how much water bills will go up. At the most this would have taken one year, and much less if CC had moved earlier. But no, instead there is this frantic rush to meet Woodland’s timetable regardless of any attempt to give Davis voters the ability to have a really informed vote on this hugely costly project. Either it is a crisis, or there is or was time to postpone the vote, or it is a manufactured “crisis.”
Another excellent post Herman. Your use of the word "impending" is spot on IMHO.
Regarding your call for "accurate estimates as to the real costs of the projects so that we in fact have a real idea of how much it will cost" I encourage you to open the Kennedy-Jenks Brown and Caldwell document and check out pages 179-182 of the pdf Section 8.2.2 Project Cost Estimates in which project cost estimates were developed for each of the 60+ recommended existing system improvement projects. Table 8-14 in that section provides a summary of the project cost estimates. Detailed backup for each project cost is included in the Section 9 CIP Appendix G on pages 360-403 of the pdf file.
I fully agree with you that "at the most this would have taken one year." In fact, Dianna Jensen and the water department staff have already accomplished exactly what you have asked for.
i agree i would like the city to disclose how much however.
I agree that it would be nice to have this level of certainty. However, I as I remember it, when the community was debating whether or not to accept a local Target, projections were made about how much would be generated in sales tax that people who supported the Target frequently put forth. The vote was, I believe,
51% to 49% with a number of people I spoke to citing the projected sales tax as their deciding factor. The Target was built, and as I understand it, fell substantially short of the projected sales taxes. As an individual who had been adamantly opposed to the Target for a number of reasons, it occurred to me that projections are just that, they are estimates, in this case erroneous, of what one may expect, and in many cases of what one hopes will be the case. They are not, in my opinion, to be taken as absolutes. And what any projection of cost must be weighed against, as Matt, Don and others have stated previously is the cost of not moving forward.
So let's say the staff were to put forward a number, what are the discriminatory factors that are going to allow us to decide whether it is too much, too little and therefore not a realistic number implying that there will necessarily be overruns, or just right. Or is it possible that demanding a number is, for some opponents, just a matter of another delaying tactic ?
Mike Harrington: Note that prettymuch the same bunch of water staff, consultants and politicians pushing the new surface project are the ones crying 911 about our current supply system
The Davis Enterprise op-ed was written by the following:
"Elaine Roberts Musser chairs the Water Advisory Committee; Helen Thomson, Jerry Adler, Alf Brandt, Steve Boschken and Jim West are WAC members; and Jane Rundquist is a WAC alternate."
Growth Issue...
"i would suggest we simply have a problem. we can either spend money fixing existing infrastructure or we can spend it creating new infrastructure. regardless it appears rates are going up, i agree i would like the city to disclose how much however."
As I have come to understand it, we will need both. The project as it stands now is conjunctive use, neither system alone can meet our needs. There will not be enough supply from the river in the summer and we do not have a plan in place to store water in the winter and then use it in the summer, so we are set up to use both systems together. I am sure someone will jump in and refine my post if I still don't have it quite right.
Don Shor, the voce of reason and level-headedness in all things Vanguard writes,
"Why not drill more deep wells? We can't. They interfere with UCD's use of that deeper water, and we have an agreement with UCD that precludes any more capacity (we can drill more wells if we want, but we can't pump more water than we already are". (emphasis added by me)
That says to me that producing the quantity of water currently being consumed by Davisites, without resorting to a huge public works project that threatens to triple our water bills, is entirely possible by replacing existing wells with deeper ones, as long as we do not dramatically increase our consumption of water, thus infringing on U.C. Davis water rights. With water prices on the rise, causing residents to dramatically reduce their water consumption, it sure seems like the most logical conclusion is that, importation of river water is really only necessary to support major population growth in Davis.
it sure seems like the most logical conclusion is that, importation of river water is really only necessary to support major population growth in Davis.
And I would agree with you if you are only choosing to look at the present and next few years. If one is taking a longer look towards future needs of this community, I do not see that as the most logical conclusion. Personally, if my own children were to choose to settle here, I would not want to leave them facing this same situation because we were too short sighted to consider their needs as well as our own.
Sorry, Roger, but we cannot replace existing wells with deeper ones. We are pumping as much water as we are allowed from the deep aquifer. Any shallower wells that we remove from service will simply reduce our current capacity to critical levels.
It is my opinion that our current use of the deep aquifer is not responsible or sustainable. With the increased pumping by the city as well as what UCD needs (and will need to sustain their student population increase) we have already greatly increased the extent to which we are using that deep water.
Moreover, well water from both aquifers contains constituents of concern to state regulators. The most urgent situation is the selenium, a problem which we have solved by shifting from the high-Se intermediate aquifers to the lower-Se deep aquifers. But the deeper water contains boron, among other constituents that are at levels the state will be regulating more tightly in coming years.
Finally, I don't know how you define 'major population growth'. But the university is planning to bring an additional 5000 students to UC Davis in this decade, and have already increased enrollment substantially this year. Those students will either live on campus or in town. The campus does not have plans to increase student housing any more than West Village has already done. Whether they live on campus or in town, they need water.
UCD is counting on the city eventually bringing in surface water. They have made stop-gap plans that involve Solano Project water and the afore-mentioned deep wells; those plans give them ten years of supply. Beyond that, they're part of the surface water equation, although as customers rather than as partners. If there is no surface supply, they will need to increase their deep well usage. And they have priority for that.
Roger, to expand on Don's comment above, we can indeed replace a deep aquifer well with another deep aquifer well Given that one of our deep aquifer wells, Well 29, has been abandoned due to sanding and other quality and efficiency problems, the plan is to replace it with a new well in the 2018-2020 period. The flow of the new well will be restricted to 1,500 gallons per minute by the terms of the original Well 29 EIR. The new wells (31-34) are all pumping at a rate of between 2,250 and 2,700 under their EIR terms.
The legal restrictions that the City faces are based in water rights law. Rob Sawyer gave a very clear presentation to the WAC on April 12th that described why. The reason is that the Water Department of the City is what is known as an Appropriative User because it extracts water from the deep aquifer and delivers it to properties that it does not own, away from the well. The water rights of Appropriative Users stand secondary to the rights of Overlying Users, who have the highest priority rights because they own land that lies over the groundwater and use the groundwater on that land.
Appropriative Users, are entitled only to groundwater that is “surplus” to the reasonable and beneficial needs of Overlying Users. If there isn’t enough groundwater for the Overlying Users, the Appropriative Users may be cut off completely. That means that when and if the City wants to drill a new well into the deep aquifer that will extract additional water beyond what has already been allocated to the City, it must go through the CEQA EIR process and demonstrate that the new well will not adversely affect the existing (and future) wells of the Overlying Users. The studies done as part of the last EIR clearly showed that the UCD wells were being adversely affected by the City's wells and UCD exercised its rights as an Overlying User to force the City to eliminate 50% of the proposed pumping volume the City was requesting.
So any new City initiated EIR that proposes to extract more water from the Deep Aquifer has to demonstrate that UCD's existing and future wells will not be adversely affected, and we already know that the scientific data shows that UCD's existing and future wells will indeed be adversely affected. Under California water law that gives UCD the right and ability to block any additional City wells into the deep aquifer.
Don: Let me see if I understand this: The City Council agreed with UCD about limiting our volume of water pumped from the deeper wells? The CC was hell-bent on the surface water project, and supremely confident that they will get it, so they walked away from our RIGHT to the water under our feet?? We are coming back to this issue later, I can assure you. The Saylor/Souza CC did this, and we are definitely coming back to this political malpractice.
In the meantime, city water consumption per capita is falling, actually in freefall, with no bottom in sight. The deep well limits Don described are more than enough for the long run.
As I have been saying for years, this project is to supply huge quantities of new potable water for population growth in Eastern Yolo County, including Davis proper.
Actually, Mike, Matt Williams answered your question. The city's right to the water under UCD is secondary to UCD's right to that water. We (Davis) did not have a 'right to the water under our feet' because it isn't under our feet.
Although I've been harsh on you in the past, on this issue I have no real quarrel with your misunderstanding. The ins and outs of UCD's water supplies, their participation in the surface project, the issues they have with their effluent, and the various EIR's they operate under are complicated and not easy to piece together. But the bottom line that matters for this discussion is: they have higher rights to the deep water than we do. We can't pump more from the deep aquifers.
The good news is that in a few years, they will be customers of the Woodland-Davis JPA. And it seems UCD is going to grow no matter what the city might prefer.
The deep well limits Don described are more than enough for the long run.
Nope. Not even really for the short run. If we rely on the deep wells and gradually shut down the intermediate ones, we will have water shortages in 5 - 10 years. Guaranteed.
I am learning a lot. Thanks Don and Matt.
Also, I am going to be a bit blunt here. UCD has a major water waste problem. I see it everyday, the way they irrigate, the way people waste on an individual basis and the automatic toilets that flush twice almost every time one uses one. It drives me utterly nuts.
Don, here are the gallons per day numbers using the current wells, the UCD Inter-tie and the two above ground storage tanks. The 2013 through 2016 numbers represent more supply availability than peak demand. Starting in 2017 there is more peak demand than there is available supply. All the numbers from 2025 onward do not include the planned third above ground storage tank, which will reduce the shortfall by 6,000,000 gpd. The 1,000,000 gpd UCD inter-tie goes away in 2021.
2013 (1,047,657)
2014 (1,326,133)
2015 (1,608,205)
2016 (393,903)
2017 2,316,746
2018 2,178,057
2019 2,033,464
2020 6,882,860
2021 9,191,689
2022 9,503,605
2023 9,818,641
2024 10,136,828
2025 10,458,196
2026 10,782,778
2027 12,110,606
2028 12,441,712
2029 12,776,129
2030 13,113,890
2031 14,455,029
2032 14,799,580
2033 15,147,575
2034 15,499,051
2035 15,854,042
2036 16,212,582
2037 16,574,708
2038 16,940,455
2039 17,309,860
2040 17,682,958
