The city council last night’s discussion of water and what to do about water continues. And while it appears we have learned a few things, the basic trajectory of water discussion remains undisturbed, this despite city staff’s apparent inability to know or address even whether this will actually in the end yield water for the city.
The unfortunate aspect of this evening was that the people commissioned to do the independent review of the water resources initiatives were unavailable to present the report and answer questions. That means the city had to rely on the public works department to continue to present their views of the viability of the project.
We also learned that during the summer months we would have far less water available and much of that which we were able to get would have to be purchased from those who have water rights before us who are not using the water. When asked what kind of price range we were talking about, Bob Weir, the Public Works Director, did not have an answer.
Those concerned about the costs of these projects, particularly doing these projects concurrently, can take heart from the recommendations of the consultants who believe that if we do the water supply project, that might be enough to forestall the wastewater treatment project, particularly since we have been granted a two year extension before we must comply with tougher water standards. However, the city continues to attempt to push both projects through but look for ways for savings.
Bob Weir admitted that the costs of the two projects would be prohibitive as they currently stand, but hedged as to whether or not the costs could be mitigated.
From my standpoint, I fear that we still have not addressed the big questions. The operating assumption is that if we go ahead with this project it would allow us to mix the surface water with existing sources of water during the winter to produce a waste product that would be less impactful to the environment. However, during the summer and during dry years all bets are off. Weir believes we will always be able to purchase enough water to continue to have enough water from this project, but that seems speculative at best.
My concerns are first, is the river going to continue to be a reliable source into the future, particularly if we are heading into a dry period. I asked how much water we would get this month for instance after a relatively dry winter?
With global warming are we going to continue to have a reliable sources of water?
The delta is already heavily impact by water and other issues. Have we even bothered to study the long term affects of taking increasing amounts of water from the Sacramento River? After all, while the delta is not exactly in our purview, we would be contributing to the continued removal of water from the river and thus from the delta. Do we not bear some responsibility in this area?
I fear that we are going to undertake a highly expensive project because we have pushed the project along to the point where we cannot turn back and then we will find it really doesn’t address or even solve our water problems.
Given the fact that we are not actually going to lose our place in line, perhaps this is a moot point. Perhaps we can do a more thorough study as to the actual availability of water in the future.
Finally they said they would in the future meetings address the issue of ratepayer costs. This in particular has been the biggest concern from day one. If this projects ends up costing rate payers say double their current water rates, are we doing anyone a favor.
I see this as devastating to those who are on fixed incomes such as Seniors. The Senior Citizens Commission has already weighed in on this issue and expressed grave concerns about any rate hikes and the impact of people on fixed incomes. But it goes well beyond that of course. The average person is going to be just as impacted by large rate hikes. I fear we are pricing the moderate income earner out of their homes with such projects.
This is yet another reason to postpone future developments, it is not clear that we have the water as it is to continue to grow. Future development would put a further strain on this system. We need to assess the long-term impacts of our water policies and determine whether we have to water to continue to move in the direction that we are. I fear that this entire endeavor is the mining of fools gold, as we somehow believe this will solve our problems, but all the while continue to add new problems without guarantee that this solves a single existing one.
It has been talked about a bit in the past, but I become more and more convinced that this is an issue that must go to the voters to decide. At the very least it will force a discussion from the city as to what the true costs and true benefits of the project are. The people of Davis can decide how much they want to pay for water.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
too bad we don’t take an approach that would see how much we could reduce water usage with this kind of money. i also think we should consider the moral issue of whether it is right to grab more water for us at a time when large parts of the state have an absolute shortage. are we any different from those who say let me get mine first and the heck with everyone else
The surface water project needs to be stopped. The outcome is uncertain; it’s too expensive; and it is completely antiquated in terms of any sort of environmental analysis in today’s climate change era.
From what I can see, the project is being driven by consultants who contribute heavily to the campaigns of certain members of the Davis City Council, and by staff who reap the rewards of long term jobs and high salaries.
To the City Council and Public Works Staff: instead of paying for this disaster using incrementally higher user fees (death by a thousand cuts), describe the project and put it on the ballot! Let the voters decide.
DPD: If you really want a story that could lead to a grand jury investigation, look into the history and details of the surface water project. It has stunk from Day One (2000 and later, when I was on the CC), and it is getting worse.
“….particularly if we are heading into a dry period….With global warming are we going to continue to have a reliable sources of water?”
Aaaargghh! Alright David, please describe the impact of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, ENSO variability, and current climate models on the Sacramento River watershed.
“Weir believes we will always be able to purchase enough water to continue to have enough water from this project, but that seems speculative at best.”
Of course it is speculative. He’s discussing the future, so he can’t make any promises. Exactly from whom and how much surface water would cost is not knowable. But municipal water is valued so much higher than water for ag uses that it is safe to say that a municipal district will be able to bid for supplies pretty readily. For example, if Stan happens to use surface water for his almonds he may find it more profitable to just sell the water instead.
One thing is certain: if the infrastructure to convey surface water is not in place, no other source of water for Davis is possible.
“it is not clear that we have the water as it is to continue to grow.” I have never heard anything to suggest that the city would limit growth by denying water supply.
why doesn’t the City take the money being used to pay the planning staff and use it to implement water conservation measures throughout the City? That measure would reduce water use and prevent these proposals to spend more City money. We could easily contract-out the planning function instead of wasting money on the proposals that the City staff is currently proposing.
Here is the problem as I see it. At first we were told we must do both projects simultaneously (sewer plant upgrade, water project). The sewer plant upgrade was pushed first, ostensibly bc we must meet new federal water quality standards no matter what. However, my guess is, if we do the water project first, and there is no guarantee we will be able to get water from the Sac River in the summer months when we need it, down the road there will be a cry from Public Works that goes something like this: we must now do the sewer plant upgrade, bc we do not get enough water from the Sac River to make our water clean enough to meet the new federal standards. To do the water project first almost guarantees we will have to do the sewer plant upgrade, and probably at the same time.
I also find it interesting that Public Works is now admitting the old “we mustn’t get out of line for water rights” is in fact not true at all. So why should we believe the new argument that is being put forth about having to redo challenges? The credibility of Public Works is not particularly high right now.
What is being admitted by Public Works is that ratepayers cannot afford to pay for two projects at once. Seems to me the only way to guarantee that is to go ahead w the sewer plant upgrade, whose cost should be lessened w the Conaway Ranch idea, and skip the Sac River water project altogether – which is a dubious choice at best. Personally, I think the suggestion of the consultants to do the water project first is hogwash, and not well thought out as to ultimate consequences if not enough Sac River water is available in the summer months.
Someone correct my thinking, if I have missed something…
In the 1950’s Yolo County declined to participate in the Solano Project which developed the water supply after the construction of Monticello Dam. So all of the water stored in Lake Berryessa goes to cities and irrigation districts in Solano County. Now, 70 years later, Davis has an opportunity (probably the last opportunity) to bring in a supply of fresh surface water. That water would probably eliminate the need for wastewater treatment, because the primary reason Davis waste water fails the increasingly stringent state water quality standards is due to the poor quality of the water supply. Dixon has been struggling with these water quality issues for several years and has paid hefty fines due to non-compliance.
If the surface water eliminates the need for waste water treatment, that alone is a significant cost benefit.
The ratepayer costs for water and sewer are going to go up primarily due to increased operational costs. Did you know that your sewer rates were projected by city staff (in 2007, I think) to increase about 60% over the next 5 – 6 years? That isn’t due to any new facility. It is, as Rich said on the previous thread, due to increased operating costs. Mostly staff costs. So the rates which the city council sets for water and sewer are an issue right NOW. Don’t blame staff. The city council can and should act NOW to protect people on low and fixed incomes via a lifeline rate and a steeper progressive rate structure, both for water and sewer.
Just for the record, water rates in Woodland and Davis are low compared to other communities. But a number of wells are going to have to be replaced. How much of that cost would be eliminated or deferred is another possible benefit of the surface water project.
Don Shor is right about Davis water history. My guess is people didn’t want to pay then so now they don’t want to pay either. I guess once a fiscal coservative always a fiscal conservative.
Anyway its amazing how people project all sorts of stuff due to global warming when nobody really has any idea how water availability will be affected in the future or on what time scale. Projecting climate and water availability 100 years in the future based on some flimsy climate change modeling is about the dumbest idea in the history of this blog.
As for taking water out of the river you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to impacts. First agriculture uses the most river water using about 85% then comes industrial uses and finally domestic uses. Since the water is more valuable as a domestic resource diverting some of the ag water into domestic use is not a big problem.
However you make a bigger error when you suggest that water taken for Davis will be lost from the delta. Since the Sacramento River and Davis are part of the Sacramento River Watershed the water taken will ultimately be returned to the delta with the only losses being from photosynthesis and evapotranspiration. The real issue is the degradation of water quality in the river after running through Davis.
What you failed to mention about the discussion last night is the idea of using Conaway Ranch as a natural tertiary filter for the water to grow value added crops freeing up other Conaway water rights for other things so this plan really has no sinificant net impact on water volumes in the delta.
“Anyway its amazing how people project all sorts of stuff due to global warming when nobody really has any idea how water availability will be affected in the future or on what time scale.”
All people are saying is that given that we don’t know if water will be available does it make sense to spend hundreds of millions on a water project that in the end won’t net us any water?
“However you make a bigger error when you suggest that water taken for Davis will be lost from the delta. Since the Sacramento River and Davis are part of the Sacramento River Watershed the water taken will ultimately be returned to the delta with the only losses being from photosynthesis and evapotranspiration.”
Then you simply don’t understand what is happening to the delta right now with water issues. A huge amount of the ecological problems are directly tied to water diversion efforts.
Oh I do understand what is happening in the Delta. My point was that David is in error when he says that water will be lost from the river. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the water cycle on his part. Davis wastewater returned to Conaway ranch is not lost from the watershed or the delta. Its real impact if any, will be in water quality. However the Regional Water Quality Board is involved in the process to make sure Davis’ water quality impacts are addressed.
Since you seem to be an expert on this, can you tell what percentage of the water we take out of the Sacramento River we can expect to end up back in the watershed and end up in the Delta?
Could someone tell me: How is it that we have rights to the Sacramento River Water anyway? We are not adjacent to the river to exercise riparian rights. So what applications were made that extends such a right?
Nancy Price
We need a Citizens Task Force. I agree with David.
This concept/project has to go to a vote of the people, so it will force the city council and public works to get “concrete” about design, cost, management/operation, rates – including a life-line fee for those on fixed income, and so much more. Seems to me that we need a Citizens Task Force to come up with a full list of concerns and questions and start to get answers.
Every time there is discussion at the City Council…the waters get murkier…just like the very polluted Sacto River with ag and military toxic run-off and pollution. So what treatment plant will treat that water before it comes out of my faucet? Given current treatment standards and ppb regulations, I still wouldn’t even a glass to my lips, let alone use it to cook with or bathe even after treatment.
Nancy Price
What Mike Harrington wrote. Still am not reading anything at all about ‘alternatives’ to either water supply or wastewater treatment. In this day and age it seems crazy the best system is a pipeline from the Sacramento River.
Could someone explain to me why it is better to pipe our post-treatment water to Conaway Ranch than using it as non-potable irrigation water in Davis?
“Could someone explain to me why it is better to pipe our post-treatment water to Conaway Ranch than using it as non-potable irrigation water in Davis?”
My understanding is that we can take water from the wastewater treatment plant and divert it to Conaway Ranch to irrigate crops – but the water quality standard will not be as stringent as it otherwise would be. This will mean the sewer plant upgrade will not have to be as extensive, and should save about $40 million – or so the story goes from Public Works.
No one has really addressed my point yet. What if we institute the water project, and pipe in Sac River water? Suppose in the the summer time we cannot get all the water we need. Will this degrade the quality of water to the point where Public Works can now argue we need a full sewer plant upgrade? In other words, it will necessitate paying for both projects at once?
I would also caution just bc we missed an opportunity in the past, does not mean a present option is a wise one.
Drip irrigation. drip irrigation drip irrigation drip irrigation..of course where feasible. But no, the farmers would rather pump and suck willy nilly millions of gallons of water onto large monocultured fields. They don’t want to pay for it either. Most of them at least are content to irrigate the fields and pollute the water tables with outdated methods of agriculture and stick to their conservative guns. They don’t want regulation and they don’t want to pay for water. There’s got to be a medium. They should pay for water and they should also save water. They should receive incentives to use better water saving techniques, but quite frankly in the “first’ world and in the year 2009, if we can’t come up with anything better than flooding a field with water from the wells, then we are screwed. This is why there is a water shortage. Because we’re too wasteful. Actually not we, because I don’t use flood irrigation. They as in the ones (farmers) that don’t want to pay for water and also households that don’t want to save water. We are all part of the problem and if we’re not going to be part of the solution then we shouldn’t complain. Farmers need to step up and start saving or start paying. Bottom line otherwise we’re all going to suffer and I’m sick and tired of having to pay for greedy republican policy decisions and democratic voter apathy.
Madame Shoes makes a good point. It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, but farmers use 95% of the water. If that is true, then conservation needs to begin w them. But Sue Greenwald is right, conservation will not help us out of the economic bind we are in – whether we conserve or not, we still have to pay for piping in Sac River water and upgrading the sewer plant. And the bottom line (pardon the pun) is ratepayers cannot afford to pay for both if they are instituted at the same time.