Like many resident of Davis, I recently received in the mail a publication from the City of Davis’ Public Works Department: “Utility Connection.” I had not even received the publication yet when I got calls and emails about it, incensed not only at the content, but in the fact that this was propaganda paid for by city expense using taxpayer money.“In this special issue of Utility Connection, we offer a more detailed look at two critical public works projects. These two projects–a water supply project and a wastewater treatment project–are important to ensure a high-quality water supply for Davis citizens and protect the water quality of our rivers, wetlands and creeks.”
The implication throughout this publication is that our drinking water is unsafe. This is simply not true. The drinking water is completely safe using the current water supply. There are questions about the quality, but they are not issues of safety. Several people, familiar with this situation have suggested that the city is trying to scare people into believing that current water supplies are unsafe, but this is simply untrue.
The publication makes four key points.
- The city’s water supply is 100 percent groundwater
- There is a limited supply of groundwater
- New water quality regulations must be met but the necessary upgrades are costly
- The health of the groundwater basin is at risk
Here is where we get into controversy. The city, the city’s engineers, and the city’s water consultants that they have hired from various companies, have suggested that the only solution to this problem, is to import surface water from the Sacramento River, which requires building a costly bypass and intake facility to draw the water in. Now of course it turns out, that that water will always be available during the winter, but in drier years it will not be readily available for use during the summer months, which means we will have to rely on our own groundwater to supplement it regardless.
The city is arguing that there is a limited supply of groundwater, however, that is likely not true. First, as mentioned previously the intermediate-depth wells have never failed to recharge. There is no evidence at this point in time that deep aquifers have a limited supply. Most experts familiar with this situation have estimated that there is enough water from deep well aquifers to supply us with 30 to 50 years of water–even if they don’t recharge.
Even under the so-called conjunctive use model that uses surface water in conjunction with groundwater, we require the use of deep well aquifers to provide the water that is not available during lean times from the Sacramento River.
Given current estimates of the capacity of the deep well aquifers, it is conceivable that we may have to, in 50 years, import surface water. The city is using this fact to argue that we need to do it now, but many experts not currently getting paid by the city suggest that there is no evidence that we need to do it now.
Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible. This is due to advances in technology that may improve upon current methods of delivery, thus reducing costs and make whatever investments and expenditures obsolete by the time they go online. We thus need to look into the possibility of going to deep well aquifers and see if that will give us the kind of quality improvements that would enable us to forestall such a huge expenditure–and we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars of Davis ratepayer money for the surface water project in addition to another set of hundreds of millions for the wastewater project, that we have to do now in order to meet current regulations.
Once again however, the city is trying to scare the citizens by implying that we have a limited supply of groundwater, that the health of the groundwater is at risk, and that the only way to meet new water quality regulations–and these are again outflow regulations not intake regulations–is to import surface water.
The city has by-and-large arrived at these conclusions without sufficient study of deep aquifer alternatives.
Why is that?
Here we need only to follow the money. Remember two weeks ago in the Davis Enterprise, we saw the picture of Jeff Pelz and Bruce West chatting with Don Saylor at his announcement party? These two gentlemen were from West Yost Associates. West Yost Associates is the water consulting engineer company that is in charge of designing and constructing the new water intake system.
So here you have the owners of a major company that will be earning tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from a city contract, at the re-election party for a city councilmember who has been a stalwart for pushing through this project.
Coincidence? I don’t believe in such things.
Here you have associates from a company standing to make huge profits from city contracts openly supporting a councilmember for re-election. At the same time, you have the city financing this neat little propaganda piece to its residents implying that we lack adequate water supplies without importing water and that the water is unsafe.
I do not trust the analysis from interested parties in this process. If we are going to undertake such a huge capital expenditure, I want to be sure. And when I see things like the picture of Don Saylor with West Yost Associates at his fundraising party and then read a propaganda piece funded by the city, I do not have confidence that we are getting independent analysis. I fear that we are getting sold this project by companies trying to make millions and councilmembers currying favors for key supporters.
We need to start asking tough questions about this process before it is too late.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Stonewalling full public discussion of the alternatives to launching a wastewater treatment upgrade and surface water project simultaneously is certainly not a confidence-building measure for a city department that just a few years ago built our current wastewater treatement facility that has already been deemed inadequate and ordered to be replaced at tremendous expense to the Davis tax-payer.
Stonewalling full public discussion of the alternatives to launching a wastewater treatment upgrade and surface water project simultaneously is certainly not a confidence-building measure for a city department that just a few years ago built our current wastewater treatement facility that has already been deemed inadequate and ordered to be replaced at tremendous expense to the Davis tax-payer.
Stonewalling full public discussion of the alternatives to launching a wastewater treatment upgrade and surface water project simultaneously is certainly not a confidence-building measure for a city department that just a few years ago built our current wastewater treatement facility that has already been deemed inadequate and ordered to be replaced at tremendous expense to the Davis tax-payer.
Stonewalling full public discussion of the alternatives to launching a wastewater treatment upgrade and surface water project simultaneously is certainly not a confidence-building measure for a city department that just a few years ago built our current wastewater treatement facility that has already been deemed inadequate and ordered to be replaced at tremendous expense to the Davis tax-payer.
” …during lean times from the Sacramento River.”
My recollection on this subject, gleaned from the very limited Council public presentation and discussion, was that Davis’ place at the back end of the que to access Sacramento water meant that surface water would not be available to Davis from approx. June through at least September irrespective of whether it was a lean water year or not.
” …during lean times from the Sacramento River.”
My recollection on this subject, gleaned from the very limited Council public presentation and discussion, was that Davis’ place at the back end of the que to access Sacramento water meant that surface water would not be available to Davis from approx. June through at least September irrespective of whether it was a lean water year or not.
” …during lean times from the Sacramento River.”
My recollection on this subject, gleaned from the very limited Council public presentation and discussion, was that Davis’ place at the back end of the que to access Sacramento water meant that surface water would not be available to Davis from approx. June through at least September irrespective of whether it was a lean water year or not.
” …during lean times from the Sacramento River.”
My recollection on this subject, gleaned from the very limited Council public presentation and discussion, was that Davis’ place at the back end of the que to access Sacramento water meant that surface water would not be available to Davis from approx. June through at least September irrespective of whether it was a lean water year or not.
“Health of groundwater AT RISK”
How? Why? What level of risk?.. all we get is the statement ..AT RISK.. well, what isn’t AT RISK in some fashion?..even the Sacramento River water.
“Health of groundwater AT RISK”
How? Why? What level of risk?.. all we get is the statement ..AT RISK.. well, what isn’t AT RISK in some fashion?..even the Sacramento River water.
“Health of groundwater AT RISK”
How? Why? What level of risk?.. all we get is the statement ..AT RISK.. well, what isn’t AT RISK in some fashion?..even the Sacramento River water.
“Health of groundwater AT RISK”
How? Why? What level of risk?.. all we get is the statement ..AT RISK.. well, what isn’t AT RISK in some fashion?..even the Sacramento River water.
I believe in options and having access to the Sacramento River is a pretty useful option. I think that the alignment betwee Davis and the river should be determined and acquired as quickly as possible before some idiot developer puts 1,000 tacky little houses in the way… The pumping stations and stuff can follow whenever it is needed.
I believe in options and having access to the Sacramento River is a pretty useful option. I think that the alignment betwee Davis and the river should be determined and acquired as quickly as possible before some idiot developer puts 1,000 tacky little houses in the way… The pumping stations and stuff can follow whenever it is needed.
I believe in options and having access to the Sacramento River is a pretty useful option. I think that the alignment betwee Davis and the river should be determined and acquired as quickly as possible before some idiot developer puts 1,000 tacky little houses in the way… The pumping stations and stuff can follow whenever it is needed.
I believe in options and having access to the Sacramento River is a pretty useful option. I think that the alignment betwee Davis and the river should be determined and acquired as quickly as possible before some idiot developer puts 1,000 tacky little houses in the way… The pumping stations and stuff can follow whenever it is needed.
Who knows? what with using gray water for non-consumption purposes and other conservation ideas, the Davis of the future could have radically different water needs.
Who knows? what with using gray water for non-consumption purposes and other conservation ideas, the Davis of the future could have radically different water needs.
Who knows? what with using gray water for non-consumption purposes and other conservation ideas, the Davis of the future could have radically different water needs.
Who knows? what with using gray water for non-consumption purposes and other conservation ideas, the Davis of the future could have radically different water needs.
Mike:
Sorry but you’re wrong. Constructing a 300 million dollar water project does not give you options, in fact, it takes them away because once you get it, you have to use it. It will at least triple water costs for the average person in Davis. And the water source is unreliable, particularly in the summer, and that is given rainfall that has been average for the last 100 years, what if that average drops dramatically in the next few years? We could spend money for something that gives us no benefit.
Mike:
Sorry but you’re wrong. Constructing a 300 million dollar water project does not give you options, in fact, it takes them away because once you get it, you have to use it. It will at least triple water costs for the average person in Davis. And the water source is unreliable, particularly in the summer, and that is given rainfall that has been average for the last 100 years, what if that average drops dramatically in the next few years? We could spend money for something that gives us no benefit.
Mike:
Sorry but you’re wrong. Constructing a 300 million dollar water project does not give you options, in fact, it takes them away because once you get it, you have to use it. It will at least triple water costs for the average person in Davis. And the water source is unreliable, particularly in the summer, and that is given rainfall that has been average for the last 100 years, what if that average drops dramatically in the next few years? We could spend money for something that gives us no benefit.
Mike:
Sorry but you’re wrong. Constructing a 300 million dollar water project does not give you options, in fact, it takes them away because once you get it, you have to use it. It will at least triple water costs for the average person in Davis. And the water source is unreliable, particularly in the summer, and that is given rainfall that has been average for the last 100 years, what if that average drops dramatically in the next few years? We could spend money for something that gives us no benefit.
The individual Davis voter’s tax increase to launch both Surface Water and Wastewater Treatment projects NOW will play right into the hands of those who support large-scale periperal residential development in Davis. We will have only one choice : pay through the nose to fund both these projects or dramatically increase our population/tax base.
The individual Davis voter’s tax increase to launch both Surface Water and Wastewater Treatment projects NOW will play right into the hands of those who support large-scale periperal residential development in Davis. We will have only one choice : pay through the nose to fund both these projects or dramatically increase our population/tax base.
The individual Davis voter’s tax increase to launch both Surface Water and Wastewater Treatment projects NOW will play right into the hands of those who support large-scale periperal residential development in Davis. We will have only one choice : pay through the nose to fund both these projects or dramatically increase our population/tax base.
The individual Davis voter’s tax increase to launch both Surface Water and Wastewater Treatment projects NOW will play right into the hands of those who support large-scale periperal residential development in Davis. We will have only one choice : pay through the nose to fund both these projects or dramatically increase our population/tax base.
“We will have only one choice : pay through the nose to fund both these projects or dramatically increase our population/tax base.”
..and this would only be a short-sighted solution since large scale peripheral development ALWAYS leaves the city’s coffers in the red.. driving more need for peripheral development.. etc… the engine of sprawl.
“We will have only one choice : pay through the nose to fund both these projects or dramatically increase our population/tax base.”
..and this would only be a short-sighted solution since large scale peripheral development ALWAYS leaves the city’s coffers in the red.. driving more need for peripheral development.. etc… the engine of sprawl.
“We will have only one choice : pay through the nose to fund both these projects or dramatically increase our population/tax base.”
..and this would only be a short-sighted solution since large scale peripheral development ALWAYS leaves the city’s coffers in the red.. driving more need for peripheral development.. etc… the engine of sprawl.
“We will have only one choice : pay through the nose to fund both these projects or dramatically increase our population/tax base.”
..and this would only be a short-sighted solution since large scale peripheral development ALWAYS leaves the city’s coffers in the red.. driving more need for peripheral development.. etc… the engine of sprawl.
“…many experts not currently getting paid by the city suggest that there is no evidence that we need to do it now.”
“Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible.”
Who? It would be useful to know what your references are.
“We thus need to look into the possibility of going to deep well aquifers and see if that will give us the kind of quality improvements that would enable us to forestall such a huge expenditure…”
The water quality of the deep wells is already known. I don’t think it will resolve the discharge problem.
The point on that issue really has to do with state mandates. The city of Dixon is embroiled in a similar controversy right now. Requiring municipalities to fund massive projects to meet new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached to try to help resolve the issue there. If the state wants cleaner outflow, the state can pay for it. But that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with importing surface water.
“I do not trust the analysis from interested parties in this process. If we are going to undertake such a huge capital expenditure, I want to be sure.”
This has been the subject of numerous studies. What more would you like examined?
“…many experts not currently getting paid by the city suggest that there is no evidence that we need to do it now.”
“Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible.”
Who? It would be useful to know what your references are.
“We thus need to look into the possibility of going to deep well aquifers and see if that will give us the kind of quality improvements that would enable us to forestall such a huge expenditure…”
The water quality of the deep wells is already known. I don’t think it will resolve the discharge problem.
The point on that issue really has to do with state mandates. The city of Dixon is embroiled in a similar controversy right now. Requiring municipalities to fund massive projects to meet new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached to try to help resolve the issue there. If the state wants cleaner outflow, the state can pay for it. But that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with importing surface water.
“I do not trust the analysis from interested parties in this process. If we are going to undertake such a huge capital expenditure, I want to be sure.”
This has been the subject of numerous studies. What more would you like examined?
“…many experts not currently getting paid by the city suggest that there is no evidence that we need to do it now.”
“Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible.”
Who? It would be useful to know what your references are.
“We thus need to look into the possibility of going to deep well aquifers and see if that will give us the kind of quality improvements that would enable us to forestall such a huge expenditure…”
The water quality of the deep wells is already known. I don’t think it will resolve the discharge problem.
The point on that issue really has to do with state mandates. The city of Dixon is embroiled in a similar controversy right now. Requiring municipalities to fund massive projects to meet new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached to try to help resolve the issue there. If the state wants cleaner outflow, the state can pay for it. But that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with importing surface water.
“I do not trust the analysis from interested parties in this process. If we are going to undertake such a huge capital expenditure, I want to be sure.”
This has been the subject of numerous studies. What more would you like examined?
“…many experts not currently getting paid by the city suggest that there is no evidence that we need to do it now.”
“Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible.”
Who? It would be useful to know what your references are.
“We thus need to look into the possibility of going to deep well aquifers and see if that will give us the kind of quality improvements that would enable us to forestall such a huge expenditure…”
The water quality of the deep wells is already known. I don’t think it will resolve the discharge problem.
The point on that issue really has to do with state mandates. The city of Dixon is embroiled in a similar controversy right now. Requiring municipalities to fund massive projects to meet new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached to try to help resolve the issue there. If the state wants cleaner outflow, the state can pay for it. But that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with importing surface water.
“I do not trust the analysis from interested parties in this process. If we are going to undertake such a huge capital expenditure, I want to be sure.”
This has been the subject of numerous studies. What more would you like examined?
Whenever Saylor, Souza,and Asmundson are involved in something it’s always:
A) Not transparent;
B) Pushing Davis towards having lots of growth on the periphery;
C) Negatively affecting the environment / open space that we treasure; and
D) Comes at a cost of higher taxes to the voters who are left out of the process.
If they are so eager to destroy the very reasons why we choose to live in Davis then they should move to another city that would welcome their type of policies and politics.
Whenever Saylor, Souza,and Asmundson are involved in something it’s always:
A) Not transparent;
B) Pushing Davis towards having lots of growth on the periphery;
C) Negatively affecting the environment / open space that we treasure; and
D) Comes at a cost of higher taxes to the voters who are left out of the process.
If they are so eager to destroy the very reasons why we choose to live in Davis then they should move to another city that would welcome their type of policies and politics.
Whenever Saylor, Souza,and Asmundson are involved in something it’s always:
A) Not transparent;
B) Pushing Davis towards having lots of growth on the periphery;
C) Negatively affecting the environment / open space that we treasure; and
D) Comes at a cost of higher taxes to the voters who are left out of the process.
If they are so eager to destroy the very reasons why we choose to live in Davis then they should move to another city that would welcome their type of policies and politics.
Whenever Saylor, Souza,and Asmundson are involved in something it’s always:
A) Not transparent;
B) Pushing Davis towards having lots of growth on the periphery;
C) Negatively affecting the environment / open space that we treasure; and
D) Comes at a cost of higher taxes to the voters who are left out of the process.
If they are so eager to destroy the very reasons why we choose to live in Davis then they should move to another city that would welcome their type of policies and politics.
It is really good someone in the “media” is offering some real world (read $$$ sense) perspective on the water works. People need to wake up! There is an inside job being pulled here and the published reasons are smoke and mirrors to distract from one big fact…
…a growth spurt like Davis suffered from 1987 to 2002 can not get past the EIR (with any surity)process now without proving the water supply will be there.
Just the pipeline “plan” sufficies to open the housing floodgates.
As far as the waste water treatment angle goes, this is new to the top three reasons to do the pipeline. It was mentioned, but as a minor note item, in the 2002 West Yost “study”.
Here is a little something to Grok (if the tale I was told was/true)- Santa Rosa relies on Eel water supply. half the Eel summer water has been ordered “undiverted”. Santa Rosa now faces failing its waste water reg levels.
If we need river water to meet standards, what happens to WWT if there isn’t enough?
Seems there is a fool’s gold rush in the works.
It is way past time to have staff answer all the questions we have, or may come up with, on this matter…
…then let the residents and rate payers vote on a straight up or down Q on this pipeline.
Instead we are getting the bum’s rush into a big debt deal because there is a rumor next July there just might be a slight vote shift on the City Council…
It is really good someone in the “media” is offering some real world (read $$$ sense) perspective on the water works. People need to wake up! There is an inside job being pulled here and the published reasons are smoke and mirrors to distract from one big fact…
…a growth spurt like Davis suffered from 1987 to 2002 can not get past the EIR (with any surity)process now without proving the water supply will be there.
Just the pipeline “plan” sufficies to open the housing floodgates.
As far as the waste water treatment angle goes, this is new to the top three reasons to do the pipeline. It was mentioned, but as a minor note item, in the 2002 West Yost “study”.
Here is a little something to Grok (if the tale I was told was/true)- Santa Rosa relies on Eel water supply. half the Eel summer water has been ordered “undiverted”. Santa Rosa now faces failing its waste water reg levels.
If we need river water to meet standards, what happens to WWT if there isn’t enough?
Seems there is a fool’s gold rush in the works.
It is way past time to have staff answer all the questions we have, or may come up with, on this matter…
…then let the residents and rate payers vote on a straight up or down Q on this pipeline.
Instead we are getting the bum’s rush into a big debt deal because there is a rumor next July there just might be a slight vote shift on the City Council…
It is really good someone in the “media” is offering some real world (read $$$ sense) perspective on the water works. People need to wake up! There is an inside job being pulled here and the published reasons are smoke and mirrors to distract from one big fact…
…a growth spurt like Davis suffered from 1987 to 2002 can not get past the EIR (with any surity)process now without proving the water supply will be there.
Just the pipeline “plan” sufficies to open the housing floodgates.
As far as the waste water treatment angle goes, this is new to the top three reasons to do the pipeline. It was mentioned, but as a minor note item, in the 2002 West Yost “study”.
Here is a little something to Grok (if the tale I was told was/true)- Santa Rosa relies on Eel water supply. half the Eel summer water has been ordered “undiverted”. Santa Rosa now faces failing its waste water reg levels.
If we need river water to meet standards, what happens to WWT if there isn’t enough?
Seems there is a fool’s gold rush in the works.
It is way past time to have staff answer all the questions we have, or may come up with, on this matter…
…then let the residents and rate payers vote on a straight up or down Q on this pipeline.
Instead we are getting the bum’s rush into a big debt deal because there is a rumor next July there just might be a slight vote shift on the City Council…
It is really good someone in the “media” is offering some real world (read $$$ sense) perspective on the water works. People need to wake up! There is an inside job being pulled here and the published reasons are smoke and mirrors to distract from one big fact…
…a growth spurt like Davis suffered from 1987 to 2002 can not get past the EIR (with any surity)process now without proving the water supply will be there.
Just the pipeline “plan” sufficies to open the housing floodgates.
As far as the waste water treatment angle goes, this is new to the top three reasons to do the pipeline. It was mentioned, but as a minor note item, in the 2002 West Yost “study”.
Here is a little something to Grok (if the tale I was told was/true)- Santa Rosa relies on Eel water supply. half the Eel summer water has been ordered “undiverted”. Santa Rosa now faces failing its waste water reg levels.
If we need river water to meet standards, what happens to WWT if there isn’t enough?
Seems there is a fool’s gold rush in the works.
It is way past time to have staff answer all the questions we have, or may come up with, on this matter…
…then let the residents and rate payers vote on a straight up or down Q on this pipeline.
Instead we are getting the bum’s rush into a big debt deal because there is a rumor next July there just might be a slight vote shift on the City Council…
” The city of Dixon is embroiled in a similar controversy right now.”
We are told that our Public Works Department has also been battling with the State agencies but to no avail… for my part, I am skeptical that it has been more than a PR, half-hearted attempt. Davis Public Works perhaps needs the spotlight of increased public scrutiny and accountibility shined in its direction.
” The city of Dixon is embroiled in a similar controversy right now.”
We are told that our Public Works Department has also been battling with the State agencies but to no avail… for my part, I am skeptical that it has been more than a PR, half-hearted attempt. Davis Public Works perhaps needs the spotlight of increased public scrutiny and accountibility shined in its direction.
” The city of Dixon is embroiled in a similar controversy right now.”
We are told that our Public Works Department has also been battling with the State agencies but to no avail… for my part, I am skeptical that it has been more than a PR, half-hearted attempt. Davis Public Works perhaps needs the spotlight of increased public scrutiny and accountibility shined in its direction.
” The city of Dixon is embroiled in a similar controversy right now.”
We are told that our Public Works Department has also been battling with the State agencies but to no avail… for my part, I am skeptical that it has been more than a PR, half-hearted attempt. Davis Public Works perhaps needs the spotlight of increased public scrutiny and accountibility shined in its direction.
“Just the pipeline “plan” sufficies to open the housing floodgates.”
Mike.. I think that you have got something there.. My understanding is that there is a potential loophole in the current State legislation that requires that water sources be identified before development, ie that a “plan” even though not completed or issued the required permits can suffice to begin development.
“Just the pipeline “plan” sufficies to open the housing floodgates.”
Mike.. I think that you have got something there.. My understanding is that there is a potential loophole in the current State legislation that requires that water sources be identified before development, ie that a “plan” even though not completed or issued the required permits can suffice to begin development.
“Just the pipeline “plan” sufficies to open the housing floodgates.”
Mike.. I think that you have got something there.. My understanding is that there is a potential loophole in the current State legislation that requires that water sources be identified before development, ie that a “plan” even though not completed or issued the required permits can suffice to begin development.
“Just the pipeline “plan” sufficies to open the housing floodgates.”
Mike.. I think that you have got something there.. My understanding is that there is a potential loophole in the current State legislation that requires that water sources be identified before development, ie that a “plan” even though not completed or issued the required permits can suffice to begin development.
Don Shor said:
“….new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached…”
We’ll see how far Lois Wolk goes in defending the Davis voter’s interests here.. my guess is that it will be PR political posturing as her campaign war chest is stuffed with IOU’s.
Don Shor said:
“….new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached…”
We’ll see how far Lois Wolk goes in defending the Davis voter’s interests here.. my guess is that it will be PR political posturing as her campaign war chest is stuffed with IOU’s.
Don Shor said:
“….new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached…”
We’ll see how far Lois Wolk goes in defending the Davis voter’s interests here.. my guess is that it will be PR political posturing as her campaign war chest is stuffed with IOU’s.
Don Shor said:
“….new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached…”
We’ll see how far Lois Wolk goes in defending the Davis voter’s interests here.. my guess is that it will be PR political posturing as her campaign war chest is stuffed with IOU’s.
There are some odd statements here from a source I would assume thinks of himself as “green.”
“The city is arguing that there is a limited supply of groundwater, however, that is likely not true.”
“Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible.”
Unlimited resources? Plenty of time? Forget about it now, technology will solve our problems later?
California is notoriously short of water. That is only going to get worse. Surely it makes sense to diversify Davis’s supplies and make key investments now. I also think the City should do more to promote water conservation (encouraging appliance efficiency, more native plantings, more economical watering schedules for parks, etc).
There are some odd statements here from a source I would assume thinks of himself as “green.”
“The city is arguing that there is a limited supply of groundwater, however, that is likely not true.”
“Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible.”
Unlimited resources? Plenty of time? Forget about it now, technology will solve our problems later?
California is notoriously short of water. That is only going to get worse. Surely it makes sense to diversify Davis’s supplies and make key investments now. I also think the City should do more to promote water conservation (encouraging appliance efficiency, more native plantings, more economical watering schedules for parks, etc).
There are some odd statements here from a source I would assume thinks of himself as “green.”
“The city is arguing that there is a limited supply of groundwater, however, that is likely not true.”
“Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible.”
Unlimited resources? Plenty of time? Forget about it now, technology will solve our problems later?
California is notoriously short of water. That is only going to get worse. Surely it makes sense to diversify Davis’s supplies and make key investments now. I also think the City should do more to promote water conservation (encouraging appliance efficiency, more native plantings, more economical watering schedules for parks, etc).
There are some odd statements here from a source I would assume thinks of himself as “green.”
“The city is arguing that there is a limited supply of groundwater, however, that is likely not true.”
“Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible.”
Unlimited resources? Plenty of time? Forget about it now, technology will solve our problems later?
California is notoriously short of water. That is only going to get worse. Surely it makes sense to diversify Davis’s supplies and make key investments now. I also think the City should do more to promote water conservation (encouraging appliance efficiency, more native plantings, more economical watering schedules for parks, etc).
Anonymous 11:42 said:
Don Shor said:
“….new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached…”
We’ll see how far Lois Wolk goes in defending the Davis voter’s interests here.. my guess is that it will be PR political posturing as her campaign war chest is stuffed with IOU’s.
—–
Just to clarify: My understanding, from an article in a local Dixon paper, is that Wolk’s office has been contacted and offered to help on the Dixon issue. Not Davis. I don’t know if she has been contacted about Davis water quality discharge issues.
My main point is that these discharge issues may require a political solution. Rather than making communities pay for major upgrades due to changes in the water discharge standards, perhaps either those standards could be reviewed or the state could pay for the upgrades. Obviously our local representative would need to be involved in such a solution, either by direct intervention with the agency (which has not been cooperative with Dixon) or by introducing legislation.
Anonymous 11:42 said:
Don Shor said:
“….new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached…”
We’ll see how far Lois Wolk goes in defending the Davis voter’s interests here.. my guess is that it will be PR political posturing as her campaign war chest is stuffed with IOU’s.
—–
Just to clarify: My understanding, from an article in a local Dixon paper, is that Wolk’s office has been contacted and offered to help on the Dixon issue. Not Davis. I don’t know if she has been contacted about Davis water quality discharge issues.
My main point is that these discharge issues may require a political solution. Rather than making communities pay for major upgrades due to changes in the water discharge standards, perhaps either those standards could be reviewed or the state could pay for the upgrades. Obviously our local representative would need to be involved in such a solution, either by direct intervention with the agency (which has not been cooperative with Dixon) or by introducing legislation.
Anonymous 11:42 said:
Don Shor said:
“….new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached…”
We’ll see how far Lois Wolk goes in defending the Davis voter’s interests here.. my guess is that it will be PR political posturing as her campaign war chest is stuffed with IOU’s.
—–
Just to clarify: My understanding, from an article in a local Dixon paper, is that Wolk’s office has been contacted and offered to help on the Dixon issue. Not Davis. I don’t know if she has been contacted about Davis water quality discharge issues.
My main point is that these discharge issues may require a political solution. Rather than making communities pay for major upgrades due to changes in the water discharge standards, perhaps either those standards could be reviewed or the state could pay for the upgrades. Obviously our local representative would need to be involved in such a solution, either by direct intervention with the agency (which has not been cooperative with Dixon) or by introducing legislation.
Anonymous 11:42 said:
Don Shor said:
“….new discharge standards is really a political issue; in fact, I think Lois Wolk’s office has been approached…”
We’ll see how far Lois Wolk goes in defending the Davis voter’s interests here.. my guess is that it will be PR political posturing as her campaign war chest is stuffed with IOU’s.
—–
Just to clarify: My understanding, from an article in a local Dixon paper, is that Wolk’s office has been contacted and offered to help on the Dixon issue. Not Davis. I don’t know if she has been contacted about Davis water quality discharge issues.
My main point is that these discharge issues may require a political solution. Rather than making communities pay for major upgrades due to changes in the water discharge standards, perhaps either those standards could be reviewed or the state could pay for the upgrades. Obviously our local representative would need to be involved in such a solution, either by direct intervention with the agency (which has not been cooperative with Dixon) or by introducing legislation.
“Unlimited resources? Plenty of time? Forget about it now, technology will solve our problems later?”
Anonymous… extremely weak points as none of the statements that you made above are supported by the arguments made in favor of a prudent,CONSERVATIVE(both political and environmental) approach to this issue.
“Unlimited resources? Plenty of time? Forget about it now, technology will solve our problems later?”
Anonymous… extremely weak points as none of the statements that you made above are supported by the arguments made in favor of a prudent,CONSERVATIVE(both political and environmental) approach to this issue.
“Unlimited resources? Plenty of time? Forget about it now, technology will solve our problems later?”
Anonymous… extremely weak points as none of the statements that you made above are supported by the arguments made in favor of a prudent,CONSERVATIVE(both political and environmental) approach to this issue.
“Unlimited resources? Plenty of time? Forget about it now, technology will solve our problems later?”
Anonymous… extremely weak points as none of the statements that you made above are supported by the arguments made in favor of a prudent,CONSERVATIVE(both political and environmental) approach to this issue.
economically, an opposing argument could also be made for building such a system earlier rather than later, if one assumes that the costs of building such a system will rise faster than the city’s income over time. given the rise in the price of energy and most construction materials of late, it’s not an entirely unreasonable assumption to make.
don is correct to point out that the state has dumped the liability for all these sorts of mandates on local taxpayers, a pattern of behavior that goes back to at least prop. 13.
as does, incidentally, this mentality that if we just don’t prepare the infrastructure for growth, that all those new people (including, of course, the next generation) will just go away and not live in california (or davis), and homeowners and taxpayers already here won’t have to pay more taxes.
it hasn’t worked. the politics of davis is basically the politics of california writ small, and neither has come to grips with how to accomodate growth sustainably. the solution will not be found in either sprawling uncontrollably a la natomas nor in just closing one’s eyes to reality and demanding that people don’t move here (or be born here) anymore.
i wonder how many people here actually drink the tapwater here. the hidden cost of bottled water, water softeners, and/or RO units might not be a tax, but it is a cost all the same.
economically, an opposing argument could also be made for building such a system earlier rather than later, if one assumes that the costs of building such a system will rise faster than the city’s income over time. given the rise in the price of energy and most construction materials of late, it’s not an entirely unreasonable assumption to make.
don is correct to point out that the state has dumped the liability for all these sorts of mandates on local taxpayers, a pattern of behavior that goes back to at least prop. 13.
as does, incidentally, this mentality that if we just don’t prepare the infrastructure for growth, that all those new people (including, of course, the next generation) will just go away and not live in california (or davis), and homeowners and taxpayers already here won’t have to pay more taxes.
it hasn’t worked. the politics of davis is basically the politics of california writ small, and neither has come to grips with how to accomodate growth sustainably. the solution will not be found in either sprawling uncontrollably a la natomas nor in just closing one’s eyes to reality and demanding that people don’t move here (or be born here) anymore.
i wonder how many people here actually drink the tapwater here. the hidden cost of bottled water, water softeners, and/or RO units might not be a tax, but it is a cost all the same.
economically, an opposing argument could also be made for building such a system earlier rather than later, if one assumes that the costs of building such a system will rise faster than the city’s income over time. given the rise in the price of energy and most construction materials of late, it’s not an entirely unreasonable assumption to make.
don is correct to point out that the state has dumped the liability for all these sorts of mandates on local taxpayers, a pattern of behavior that goes back to at least prop. 13.
as does, incidentally, this mentality that if we just don’t prepare the infrastructure for growth, that all those new people (including, of course, the next generation) will just go away and not live in california (or davis), and homeowners and taxpayers already here won’t have to pay more taxes.
it hasn’t worked. the politics of davis is basically the politics of california writ small, and neither has come to grips with how to accomodate growth sustainably. the solution will not be found in either sprawling uncontrollably a la natomas nor in just closing one’s eyes to reality and demanding that people don’t move here (or be born here) anymore.
i wonder how many people here actually drink the tapwater here. the hidden cost of bottled water, water softeners, and/or RO units might not be a tax, but it is a cost all the same.
economically, an opposing argument could also be made for building such a system earlier rather than later, if one assumes that the costs of building such a system will rise faster than the city’s income over time. given the rise in the price of energy and most construction materials of late, it’s not an entirely unreasonable assumption to make.
don is correct to point out that the state has dumped the liability for all these sorts of mandates on local taxpayers, a pattern of behavior that goes back to at least prop. 13.
as does, incidentally, this mentality that if we just don’t prepare the infrastructure for growth, that all those new people (including, of course, the next generation) will just go away and not live in california (or davis), and homeowners and taxpayers already here won’t have to pay more taxes.
it hasn’t worked. the politics of davis is basically the politics of california writ small, and neither has come to grips with how to accomodate growth sustainably. the solution will not be found in either sprawling uncontrollably a la natomas nor in just closing one’s eyes to reality and demanding that people don’t move here (or be born here) anymore.
i wonder how many people here actually drink the tapwater here. the hidden cost of bottled water, water softeners, and/or RO units might not be a tax, but it is a cost all the same.
“i wonder how many people here actually drink the tapwater here. the hidden cost of bottled water, water softeners, and/or RO units might not be a tax, but it is a cost all the same.”
Under the best-case senerio, it looks like we will still be drinking bottled water and need a water softening unit and a waste treatment facility that can handle our groundwater as there will be no surface water for 4 months/yr. The local business of making our groundwater drinkable(H20 To Go) is a model of independant local Davis business that circulates our $$ back into the community.
“i wonder how many people here actually drink the tapwater here. the hidden cost of bottled water, water softeners, and/or RO units might not be a tax, but it is a cost all the same.”
Under the best-case senerio, it looks like we will still be drinking bottled water and need a water softening unit and a waste treatment facility that can handle our groundwater as there will be no surface water for 4 months/yr. The local business of making our groundwater drinkable(H20 To Go) is a model of independant local Davis business that circulates our $$ back into the community.
“i wonder how many people here actually drink the tapwater here. the hidden cost of bottled water, water softeners, and/or RO units might not be a tax, but it is a cost all the same.”
Under the best-case senerio, it looks like we will still be drinking bottled water and need a water softening unit and a waste treatment facility that can handle our groundwater as there will be no surface water for 4 months/yr. The local business of making our groundwater drinkable(H20 To Go) is a model of independant local Davis business that circulates our $$ back into the community.
“i wonder how many people here actually drink the tapwater here. the hidden cost of bottled water, water softeners, and/or RO units might not be a tax, but it is a cost all the same.”
Under the best-case senerio, it looks like we will still be drinking bottled water and need a water softening unit and a waste treatment facility that can handle our groundwater as there will be no surface water for 4 months/yr. The local business of making our groundwater drinkable(H20 To Go) is a model of independant local Davis business that circulates our $$ back into the community.
I would bet that most people would not go back to drinking river water after their forced 4 month taste of the purified stuff.
I would bet that most people would not go back to drinking river water after their forced 4 month taste of the purified stuff.
I would bet that most people would not go back to drinking river water after their forced 4 month taste of the purified stuff.
I would bet that most people would not go back to drinking river water after their forced 4 month taste of the purified stuff.
Anonymous 11:48:
Interesting argument, but the irony of it is that you are in favor of using Sacramento River water, not exactly an environmentally friendly alternative.
All I’m suggesting is a deep water alternative is the cheaper more practical alternative until we are forced to make a different choice. At which point, hopefully we have better alternatives available than the ones that we have now.
Anonymous 11:48:
Interesting argument, but the irony of it is that you are in favor of using Sacramento River water, not exactly an environmentally friendly alternative.
All I’m suggesting is a deep water alternative is the cheaper more practical alternative until we are forced to make a different choice. At which point, hopefully we have better alternatives available than the ones that we have now.
Anonymous 11:48:
Interesting argument, but the irony of it is that you are in favor of using Sacramento River water, not exactly an environmentally friendly alternative.
All I’m suggesting is a deep water alternative is the cheaper more practical alternative until we are forced to make a different choice. At which point, hopefully we have better alternatives available than the ones that we have now.
Anonymous 11:48:
Interesting argument, but the irony of it is that you are in favor of using Sacramento River water, not exactly an environmentally friendly alternative.
All I’m suggesting is a deep water alternative is the cheaper more practical alternative until we are forced to make a different choice. At which point, hopefully we have better alternatives available than the ones that we have now.
Found this article interesting and wonder why we haven’t explored this option a bit more desalination…
Israeli Plant
This current plant is now online and is accounting for about 6 percent of Israel’s water.
Found this article interesting and wonder why we haven’t explored this option a bit more desalination…
Israeli Plant
This current plant is now online and is accounting for about 6 percent of Israel’s water.
Found this article interesting and wonder why we haven’t explored this option a bit more desalination…
Israeli Plant
This current plant is now online and is accounting for about 6 percent of Israel’s water.
Found this article interesting and wonder why we haven’t explored this option a bit more desalination…
Israeli Plant
This current plant is now online and is accounting for about 6 percent of Israel’s water.
i suspect the california coastal communities will eventually have to go to desalinization, if just because their aquifers are already perilously close to being tapped, even without a multiyear drought.
the problem inherent in desal is that it generally requires a whole lot of energy to do so. in a future of perpetually rising energy costs, peak water and peak oil may very well run headlong into one another.
serious attempts at conservation and a heck of a lot more water capture through rain barrels and cisterns might help to stretch the water we do have a lot further.
i suspect the california coastal communities will eventually have to go to desalinization, if just because their aquifers are already perilously close to being tapped, even without a multiyear drought.
the problem inherent in desal is that it generally requires a whole lot of energy to do so. in a future of perpetually rising energy costs, peak water and peak oil may very well run headlong into one another.
serious attempts at conservation and a heck of a lot more water capture through rain barrels and cisterns might help to stretch the water we do have a lot further.
i suspect the california coastal communities will eventually have to go to desalinization, if just because their aquifers are already perilously close to being tapped, even without a multiyear drought.
the problem inherent in desal is that it generally requires a whole lot of energy to do so. in a future of perpetually rising energy costs, peak water and peak oil may very well run headlong into one another.
serious attempts at conservation and a heck of a lot more water capture through rain barrels and cisterns might help to stretch the water we do have a lot further.
i suspect the california coastal communities will eventually have to go to desalinization, if just because their aquifers are already perilously close to being tapped, even without a multiyear drought.
the problem inherent in desal is that it generally requires a whole lot of energy to do so. in a future of perpetually rising energy costs, peak water and peak oil may very well run headlong into one another.
serious attempts at conservation and a heck of a lot more water capture through rain barrels and cisterns might help to stretch the water we do have a lot further.
now that i just read that article, i have to agree that a RO desal process is very intriguing.
now that i just read that article, i have to agree that a RO desal process is very intriguing.
now that i just read that article, i have to agree that a RO desal process is very intriguing.
now that i just read that article, i have to agree that a RO desal process is very intriguing.
I assume you’re referring to RO treatment of local groundwater.
Desalination would produce a waste stream of brine that would include calcium, boron, and selenium, which are not easy to dispose of. As wu-ming notes, there would be energy input as well.
If you’re referring to importing salt water to treat with RO, that wouldn’t make economic sense.
I assume you’re referring to RO treatment of local groundwater.
Desalination would produce a waste stream of brine that would include calcium, boron, and selenium, which are not easy to dispose of. As wu-ming notes, there would be energy input as well.
If you’re referring to importing salt water to treat with RO, that wouldn’t make economic sense.
I assume you’re referring to RO treatment of local groundwater.
Desalination would produce a waste stream of brine that would include calcium, boron, and selenium, which are not easy to dispose of. As wu-ming notes, there would be energy input as well.
If you’re referring to importing salt water to treat with RO, that wouldn’t make economic sense.
I assume you’re referring to RO treatment of local groundwater.
Desalination would produce a waste stream of brine that would include calcium, boron, and selenium, which are not easy to dispose of. As wu-ming notes, there would be energy input as well.
If you’re referring to importing salt water to treat with RO, that wouldn’t make economic sense.
It will when we have no water.
It will when we have no water.
It will when we have no water.
It will when we have no water.
There is no scenario under which we will have “no water.”
Davisite said: “Davis’ place at the back end of the que to access Sacramento water meant that surface water would not be available to Davis from approx. June through at least September irrespective of whether it was a lean water year or not.”
From the minutes of the 2002 Town Hall meeting:
“Water should be available during all 12 months out of the year in the wettest years, about 9 or 10 months of the year in average years, and slightly less often
during the driest years.”
There is no scenario under which we will have “no water.”
Davisite said: “Davis’ place at the back end of the que to access Sacramento water meant that surface water would not be available to Davis from approx. June through at least September irrespective of whether it was a lean water year or not.”
From the minutes of the 2002 Town Hall meeting:
“Water should be available during all 12 months out of the year in the wettest years, about 9 or 10 months of the year in average years, and slightly less often
during the driest years.”
There is no scenario under which we will have “no water.”
Davisite said: “Davis’ place at the back end of the que to access Sacramento water meant that surface water would not be available to Davis from approx. June through at least September irrespective of whether it was a lean water year or not.”
From the minutes of the 2002 Town Hall meeting:
“Water should be available during all 12 months out of the year in the wettest years, about 9 or 10 months of the year in average years, and slightly less often
during the driest years.”
There is no scenario under which we will have “no water.”
Davisite said: “Davis’ place at the back end of the que to access Sacramento water meant that surface water would not be available to Davis from approx. June through at least September irrespective of whether it was a lean water year or not.”
From the minutes of the 2002 Town Hall meeting:
“Water should be available during all 12 months out of the year in the wettest years, about 9 or 10 months of the year in average years, and slightly less often
during the driest years.”
No water=less supply than demand and that will happen given climate changes and population growth confluence.
No water=less supply than demand and that will happen given climate changes and population growth confluence.
No water=less supply than demand and that will happen given climate changes and population growth confluence.
No water=less supply than demand and that will happen given climate changes and population growth confluence.
that assumes that demand isn’t elastic, vincent. as with energy consumption, there’s a lot of fat there that can be cut out if need be with relatively little actual hardship for most. granted, population and climate are going to make it hard, especially for folks down in LA, but we’ve got a long, long way to go before we hit any real limits here in yolo county, even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.
just banning unused lawns in landscaping would free up tons of water.
that assumes that demand isn’t elastic, vincent. as with energy consumption, there’s a lot of fat there that can be cut out if need be with relatively little actual hardship for most. granted, population and climate are going to make it hard, especially for folks down in LA, but we’ve got a long, long way to go before we hit any real limits here in yolo county, even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.
just banning unused lawns in landscaping would free up tons of water.
that assumes that demand isn’t elastic, vincent. as with energy consumption, there’s a lot of fat there that can be cut out if need be with relatively little actual hardship for most. granted, population and climate are going to make it hard, especially for folks down in LA, but we’ve got a long, long way to go before we hit any real limits here in yolo county, even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.
just banning unused lawns in landscaping would free up tons of water.
that assumes that demand isn’t elastic, vincent. as with energy consumption, there’s a lot of fat there that can be cut out if need be with relatively little actual hardship for most. granted, population and climate are going to make it hard, especially for folks down in LA, but we’ve got a long, long way to go before we hit any real limits here in yolo county, even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.
just banning unused lawns in landscaping would free up tons of water.
“….From the minutes of the 2002 Town Hall meeting:”
Don.. The June thru September scenerio was presented at the 2007 council meeting update.. perhaps a further example of why more detailed scrutiny of the facts is necessary.
“….From the minutes of the 2002 Town Hall meeting:”
Don.. The June thru September scenerio was presented at the 2007 council meeting update.. perhaps a further example of why more detailed scrutiny of the facts is necessary.
“….From the minutes of the 2002 Town Hall meeting:”
Don.. The June thru September scenerio was presented at the 2007 council meeting update.. perhaps a further example of why more detailed scrutiny of the facts is necessary.
“….From the minutes of the 2002 Town Hall meeting:”
Don.. The June thru September scenerio was presented at the 2007 council meeting update.. perhaps a further example of why more detailed scrutiny of the facts is necessary.
Anyone who has followed this surface water plan since about 2002 cannot help but recognize that the last 2 Councils(3-2 majority) have been pushing for this surface water project while colluding with the Davis Public Works Department to keep the public at bay with the story that it was only being studied.
As Homie said on SNL..”Homie don’t play dat game!”
Anyone who has followed this surface water plan since about 2002 cannot help but recognize that the last 2 Councils(3-2 majority) have been pushing for this surface water project while colluding with the Davis Public Works Department to keep the public at bay with the story that it was only being studied.
As Homie said on SNL..”Homie don’t play dat game!”
Anyone who has followed this surface water plan since about 2002 cannot help but recognize that the last 2 Councils(3-2 majority) have been pushing for this surface water project while colluding with the Davis Public Works Department to keep the public at bay with the story that it was only being studied.
As Homie said on SNL..”Homie don’t play dat game!”
Anyone who has followed this surface water plan since about 2002 cannot help but recognize that the last 2 Councils(3-2 majority) have been pushing for this surface water project while colluding with the Davis Public Works Department to keep the public at bay with the story that it was only being studied.
As Homie said on SNL..”Homie don’t play dat game!”
DPD – I think this is your best article yet. Very good investigative reporting that you won’t see anywhere else.
Thanks.
DPD – I think this is your best article yet. Very good investigative reporting that you won’t see anywhere else.
Thanks.
DPD – I think this is your best article yet. Very good investigative reporting that you won’t see anywhere else.
Thanks.
DPD – I think this is your best article yet. Very good investigative reporting that you won’t see anywhere else.
Thanks.
“As Homie said on SNL..”Homie don’t play dat game!”
I think it was In Living Colour.
“As Homie said on SNL..”Homie don’t play dat game!”
I think it was In Living Colour.
“As Homie said on SNL..”Homie don’t play dat game!”
I think it was In Living Colour.
“As Homie said on SNL..”Homie don’t play dat game!”
I think it was In Living Colour.
Ron Glick Says:
“Its only Chinatown.”
The water in Davis tastes terrible. I get mine at the coop well. Still you wonder about the water this far down on the Sacramento River. If Davis is to grow is there adequate ground water? Will there be water available from the Sacto River if a new Peripheral canal is built or the collapse of the Delta makes it impossible to take more water out of the river.
Th big mistake here was made long ago when Davis didn’t agree to get water from Berryessa. So now we must pay for the mistakes of the ancestors. The best solution would be to pay the Solano Irrigation District for water from Berryessa. Even if you pay through the nose it will still cost less than building a entire new infrastructure.
Ron Glick Says:
“Its only Chinatown.”
The water in Davis tastes terrible. I get mine at the coop well. Still you wonder about the water this far down on the Sacramento River. If Davis is to grow is there adequate ground water? Will there be water available from the Sacto River if a new Peripheral canal is built or the collapse of the Delta makes it impossible to take more water out of the river.
Th big mistake here was made long ago when Davis didn’t agree to get water from Berryessa. So now we must pay for the mistakes of the ancestors. The best solution would be to pay the Solano Irrigation District for water from Berryessa. Even if you pay through the nose it will still cost less than building a entire new infrastructure.
Ron Glick Says:
“Its only Chinatown.”
The water in Davis tastes terrible. I get mine at the coop well. Still you wonder about the water this far down on the Sacramento River. If Davis is to grow is there adequate ground water? Will there be water available from the Sacto River if a new Peripheral canal is built or the collapse of the Delta makes it impossible to take more water out of the river.
Th big mistake here was made long ago when Davis didn’t agree to get water from Berryessa. So now we must pay for the mistakes of the ancestors. The best solution would be to pay the Solano Irrigation District for water from Berryessa. Even if you pay through the nose it will still cost less than building a entire new infrastructure.
Ron Glick Says:
“Its only Chinatown.”
The water in Davis tastes terrible. I get mine at the coop well. Still you wonder about the water this far down on the Sacramento River. If Davis is to grow is there adequate ground water? Will there be water available from the Sacto River if a new Peripheral canal is built or the collapse of the Delta makes it impossible to take more water out of the river.
Th big mistake here was made long ago when Davis didn’t agree to get water from Berryessa. So now we must pay for the mistakes of the ancestors. The best solution would be to pay the Solano Irrigation District for water from Berryessa. Even if you pay through the nose it will still cost less than building a entire new infrastructure.
“…even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.”
Nice turn of phrase,Wu-ming …(people)aspiration instead of(plant)transpiration…
“…even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.”
Nice turn of phrase,Wu-ming …(people)aspiration instead of(plant)transpiration…
“…even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.”
Nice turn of phrase,Wu-ming …(people)aspiration instead of(plant)transpiration…
“…even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.”
Nice turn of phrase,Wu-ming …(people)aspiration instead of(plant)transpiration…
great catch, davisite.
great catch, davisite.
great catch, davisite.
great catch, davisite.
“…even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.”
The most extensive modeling that I have seen about the impact of global warming on specific watersheds of California indicates that the likely scenario is:
–greater rainfall in Northern California.
The biggest increases would be in the northwest part of the state and on the lower elevations of the Sierra. But the area north of the Bay and west of the causeway would have significantly higher rainfall.
So the watershed that recharges our groundwater locally would have more water.
–earlier runoff due to lower snowpack.
More water falling as rain, less as snow.
Bummer for Sacramento, but this would mean greater flows in the Sacramento River precisely during the periods when Davis would be withdrawing water.
I have seen no models that project less water overall for Northern California. The main concern is storage, flooding, and the earlier timing of water flow.
So to continue to cite global warming and climate change as a negative factor in making local water planning decisions does not appear to be based on the best available models. If anything, we would be better off, especially if we could develop a way to store winter runoff water by groundwater banking.
“…even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.”
The most extensive modeling that I have seen about the impact of global warming on specific watersheds of California indicates that the likely scenario is:
–greater rainfall in Northern California.
The biggest increases would be in the northwest part of the state and on the lower elevations of the Sierra. But the area north of the Bay and west of the causeway would have significantly higher rainfall.
So the watershed that recharges our groundwater locally would have more water.
–earlier runoff due to lower snowpack.
More water falling as rain, less as snow.
Bummer for Sacramento, but this would mean greater flows in the Sacramento River precisely during the periods when Davis would be withdrawing water.
I have seen no models that project less water overall for Northern California. The main concern is storage, flooding, and the earlier timing of water flow.
So to continue to cite global warming and climate change as a negative factor in making local water planning decisions does not appear to be based on the best available models. If anything, we would be better off, especially if we could develop a way to store winter runoff water by groundwater banking.
“…even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.”
The most extensive modeling that I have seen about the impact of global warming on specific watersheds of California indicates that the likely scenario is:
–greater rainfall in Northern California.
The biggest increases would be in the northwest part of the state and on the lower elevations of the Sierra. But the area north of the Bay and west of the causeway would have significantly higher rainfall.
So the watershed that recharges our groundwater locally would have more water.
–earlier runoff due to lower snowpack.
More water falling as rain, less as snow.
Bummer for Sacramento, but this would mean greater flows in the Sacramento River precisely during the periods when Davis would be withdrawing water.
I have seen no models that project less water overall for Northern California. The main concern is storage, flooding, and the earlier timing of water flow.
So to continue to cite global warming and climate change as a negative factor in making local water planning decisions does not appear to be based on the best available models. If anything, we would be better off, especially if we could develop a way to store winter runoff water by groundwater banking.
“…even with projected global warming increases in temperature, evaporation and aspiration.”
The most extensive modeling that I have seen about the impact of global warming on specific watersheds of California indicates that the likely scenario is:
–greater rainfall in Northern California.
The biggest increases would be in the northwest part of the state and on the lower elevations of the Sierra. But the area north of the Bay and west of the causeway would have significantly higher rainfall.
So the watershed that recharges our groundwater locally would have more water.
–earlier runoff due to lower snowpack.
More water falling as rain, less as snow.
Bummer for Sacramento, but this would mean greater flows in the Sacramento River precisely during the periods when Davis would be withdrawing water.
I have seen no models that project less water overall for Northern California. The main concern is storage, flooding, and the earlier timing of water flow.
So to continue to cite global warming and climate change as a negative factor in making local water planning decisions does not appear to be based on the best available models. If anything, we would be better off, especially if we could develop a way to store winter runoff water by groundwater banking.
There was a presentation at the Varsity Theatre in the last couple of years by UC Davis Scientists, one of them, whose name I can’t recall, claimed he didn’t know if the future of California would be warmer and wetter or warmer or dryer.
There was a presentation at the Varsity Theatre in the last couple of years by UC Davis Scientists, one of them, whose name I can’t recall, claimed he didn’t know if the future of California would be warmer and wetter or warmer or dryer.
There was a presentation at the Varsity Theatre in the last couple of years by UC Davis Scientists, one of them, whose name I can’t recall, claimed he didn’t know if the future of California would be warmer and wetter or warmer or dryer.
There was a presentation at the Varsity Theatre in the last couple of years by UC Davis Scientists, one of them, whose name I can’t recall, claimed he didn’t know if the future of California would be warmer and wetter or warmer or dryer.
Don.. your description of the water future supports Davis staying with its groundwater supply as projections suggest it will be even more positive with increased rain. In contrast, lower snow pack projections means that there will be less ability to store water that has to be shared throughout the state that is controlled by the political power(money/population?)of different regions; we know that Davis is at the end of the line when it comes to this surface water allocation.
Don.. your description of the water future supports Davis staying with its groundwater supply as projections suggest it will be even more positive with increased rain. In contrast, lower snow pack projections means that there will be less ability to store water that has to be shared throughout the state that is controlled by the political power(money/population?)of different regions; we know that Davis is at the end of the line when it comes to this surface water allocation.
Don.. your description of the water future supports Davis staying with its groundwater supply as projections suggest it will be even more positive with increased rain. In contrast, lower snow pack projections means that there will be less ability to store water that has to be shared throughout the state that is controlled by the political power(money/population?)of different regions; we know that Davis is at the end of the line when it comes to this surface water allocation.
Don.. your description of the water future supports Davis staying with its groundwater supply as projections suggest it will be even more positive with increased rain. In contrast, lower snow pack projections means that there will be less ability to store water that has to be shared throughout the state that is controlled by the political power(money/population?)of different regions; we know that Davis is at the end of the line when it comes to this surface water allocation.