Despite Cost Cutting Measures City Staff Still Classifies Costs as “Daunting” –
The council has two items on the agenda this week dealing with water.
They make six recommendations for moving forward. Staff concurs with four of these recommendations and will reevaluate two of them.
Here are the four that city staff concurs with:
1. Move forward with the City of Woodland and UC Davis to develop a supply of surface water from the Sacramento River and other sources to secure a sustainable future for the City of Davis.
2. Make interim modifications to existing water supply infrastructure to reduce the selenium concentration, including the drilling of new deep aquifer wells and converting wells with high selenium for landscape irrigation.
3. Move ahead with an aggressive water conservation program with a focus on outdoor water use practices and city facility water management efforts.
5. Undertake a comprehensive analysis of the dispersal of secondary effluent including the Conaway Ranch alternative.
Two others need more examination:
4. Make interim modifications to wastewater treatment system to enhance the performance to meet existing discharge requirements for the interim until final dispersal alternative is selected. These improvements could possibly defer new wastewater treatment plan improvements.
6. Once construction begins on the new water supply from the Sacramento River, reconsider the need for a new wastewater treatment plant.
Item six is of particular interest because it suggests that perhaps we do not need to do both. Here was staff’s response:
“Further study continues on this item. Staff is updating its wastewater facility improvement options based on the value engineering just completed as directed by Council. The results include lower project costs and reduced sewer rate impacts. More information will be brought back to Council to address this item.”
Staff seems to dodge this issue but it suggests as previous studies might have that if we simply change the water supply it might deal with much of the wastewater problem. The problem remains whether one believes that changing the supply will solve our problems. I remain far from convinced that the Sacramento River is going to prove a reliable source for water given continuing forecasts that suggest as Climate Change progresses, California will have less water.
As it stands now we primarily need water in the summer and in dry years we would not have access to water from the Sacramento River.
The report continues to warn that the city may lose water rights to the Sacramento River if rights are not exercised in the near future. This has been the mantra that has pushed this project forward past the understanding of how to make it work fiscally.
To me this report does not address my key concerns about the surface water project. It is unclear to me that this is going to be a viable option in the future. We continue to be pressured to move forward with threat that others will get into line before us. But in the case of a water emergency or shortage it appears unlikely that this will solve our problems.
Until these issues are address, I simply am not willing to move forward with a project that will add huge amounts of new fees to rate payers.
Here’s the summary from staff:
A key determination was that we should move forward with the surface water project for several reasons, including a more reliable water supply, stabilization of the aquifer and improved water quality for wastewater treatment. In recognition of the magnitude of the costs of moving forward with both the wastewater and water projects simultaneously, they suggested the surface water project would be the highest priority. They also recommend that we should pursue other options for improving our handling of wastewater treatment needs, short of a full plant upgrade such as the Conaway reuse, or more modest upgrades at the current plant. And finally the recommendations to greatly increase water conservation efforts merit more exploration as a component of a comprehensive approach to water supply issues.
Wastewater Treatment Issues
It is instructive to read the staff’s assessment of the fiscal impact of the wastewater treatment project:
“Last year, the total project costs for the proposed upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant required to meet our new NPDES permit were estimated to be in excess of $200 million, including a construction cost estimate of $165 million. As a result of the value-engineering work performed on the preliminary design, combined with improved bid climate, the construction cost estimate is being reduced by approximately $40 million.”
So we are talking about a 20% reduction in cost. But there is more:
“The reduced project cost for the secondary/tertiary treatment alternative will serve as the basis for comparison to any re-use alternative project, such as the Conaway Ranch application. While cost estimates for re-use alternatives have yet to be developed, they would have the potential of being substantially cheaper than the secondary/tertiary treatment alternative.”
However here is the fine print:
“Nonetheless, even under the most favorable scenarios, the cost of the most cost-effective solution to meeting our wastewater treatment requirements, combined with the cost of the Davis-Woodland Water Supply project are significant.”
And I still believe and maintain that whatever costs we anticipate with these projects are the tip of the iceberg.
Staff summarizes four reviews that they have made including the review of the water and wastewater projects, value engineering effort, study of the Woodland joint wastewater treatment option, and the fact that the Regional Water Quality Control Board has now granted the City two additional years until 2017 to complete improvements to our wastewater treatment system.
They write:
“In reviewing all of the material associated with the above items, it simply reinforces how intertwined the water and wastewater projects are. The costs are certainly daunting.”
Staff at this point recommends not proceeding with a joint wastewater project with Sacramento regional or Woodland as they are not economically feasible or practice.
However they are going to look into a re-use option with Conway Ranch.
“A re-use solution for wastewater permit requirements should be pursued. The complexities of the re-use option and the short time schedule will make this difficult, but the potential benefits warrant a full exploration of this opportunity. Some parallel work is needed on a “Plan B” should the re-use option prove infeasible. At a minimum, CEQA work for both the re-use option and the tertiary portion of the secondary/tertiary option need to proceed. Similarly, the rehabilitation/replacement contract should move forward for needed work under both scenarios. Emphasis on the financial impacts of the total costs of both the water and waste water utilities will be improved via a detailed Revenue Program for both utilities.”
The bottom line here is that while staff may have found a 20 percent cost savings, most of the rest of the costs of this project are actually unknown. The cost of pursuing both a wastewater treatment and a water supply project are prohibitive or using staff’s assessment, daunting. My fear is not just the known costs, but the expected cost increases as the project goes forward.
I simply lack the confidence of the consultants to believe that the Sacramento River is going to remain a reliable source of water given climate change and expectations that rainfall will be more scarce during the future.
I also think there needs to be a more thorough examination of the impact of water discharge. Current regulation focuses on the impact of discharge into the immediate environment. It seems unlikely that they have examined the transaction costs of shifting the supply of water from underground aquifers to the Sacramento River. What is the impact on the delta which is increasingly under stress? Examining environmental impact in such a bubble is dangerous and self-defeating.
The bottom line here though remains one of costs and practicality. The costs of pursuing both of these projects remain prohibitive even with the decrease in the cost of the water supply project. $40 million in savings is not a whole lot if we are talking about a $500 million combined cost for both projects.
Moreover the questions remain as to whether this will actually solve our water issues or whether it is will be a moot point once the project comes on line because there is not enough rainfall and snowfall to allow us to get any kind of summertime draw when we really need the additional water.
Council needs to re-think this. I am glad they have done so to some extent but this does not go nearly far enough.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In my article, “Local Water Democracy,” posted earlier to the Davis Vanguard,I pointed out that one issue, not discussed here by Greenwald in regard to cost, is whether our drinking water and sanitation services remain in public hands and under local, democratic control.
With the city in economic downturn and confronting a budget crisis, projects of the magnitude are expensive in the best of circumstances. Any discussion of these projects must include cost and conditions of operation and management.
We must remain vigilant that these services remain public, not even a combination of public-ownership and private for-profit management/operation – a guarantee of even greater rate increases that the CA Public Utilities Commission will not protect us from.
As I pointed out, cash-strapped cities are falling for schemes that under long-term lease or outright sale turn over utilities to private for-profit corporations. To learn whether any such corporation has approached Davis or such conversations have beemn held between City Council members or city officials and pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and the California Constitution, as amended by passage of Prop 59 on November 3, 2004, I submitted a letter under the Public Records Act requesting the following: inspection of records and documents in reference to any correspondence or discussion by any Person or Persons, including by any member of the City Council, by the City Manager or member of any Department of the City of Davis, in particular the Department of Public Works, regarding the up-grade and enlargement of the wastewater treatment utility (including design, construction, management and operation) AND of the water pipeline system (water services) proposed to be built to deliver water to Davis from the Sacramento River (including design, construction, management and operation) with any private business/corporation that provides drinking water and wastewater treatment (sanitation) and environmental (water) services to municipalities.
To read more about water democracy in California at http://www.defendingwaterincalifornia.org in particular, “California Communities Join Global Water Democracy Movement.”
Nancy Price
I am really puzzled here. On the upcoming City Council agenda, it cites six recommendations by City Staff:
1. Consider background and historical information and data regarding wastewater and water projects.
2. Review and comment on independent assessments of water project prepared by outside consultants.
3. No further consideration should be given to connecting w Sacto Regional or Woodland facilities as a wastewater treatment alternative – it is too expensive.
4. Accept updated cost estimates for wastewater treatment upgrade as developed in value engineering study. Initiate design of wastewater treatment upgrade, but hold off actual design work until Conaway Ranch option is fully evaluated.
5. Approve resolution authorizing city to enter into agreement w Conaway Ranch.
6. Direct staff to determine what will be required to move ahead with wastewater treatment upgrade regardless of alternative chosen (Conaway Ranch solution or full upgrade to the sewer plant).
Nowhere that I can see does it mention talk of the water project other than vaguely in number 1. It does not indicate in any way that the city is moving forward with the water project.
It does scrap the idea of connecting w Sacto’s or Woodland’s wastewater treatment facilities as too expensive.
The agenda halts going forward with the wastewater treatment upgrade as it was envisioned, and hopes that the Conaway Ranch option might cut costs and obviate the need for the full wastewater treatment upgrade.
Unfortunately the agenda makes no mention of what was in the independent assessment report in regard to the water project.
From what you are telling us, DPD, it sounds like the independent consultants agree that the city should move ahead with the water project, despite the costs to citizens. Am I correct in that assumption from your article, DPD? In other words, Sue Greenwald’s call for independent consultants did not assist with her position that we should not initiate a wastewater treatement plant upgrade at the same time as a water project? Did these consultants factor in the enormous cost to taxpayer citizens that will probably be unsustainable?
The bottom line is this: seniors on fixed incomes and young families w children, among many others, cannot afford massive increases in sewer/water fees. Massive increases will literally drive people out of this town. The magnitude of the sewer and water rate increase we are talking about for the future will virtually be like paying “rent” on top of an already existing mortgage.
This town has already seen an astronomical increase in their sewer fees – some citizens were hit by a 400% increase in one year, that was leveled out by an emergency cap to no more than a 200% increase. However, the city has already admitted they supposedly gained virtually nothing in the way of added revenue for the wastewater project from this large increase. So think how much higher that sewer fee must be raised to pay for an expensive upgrade to the wastewater treatement plant! Then at minimum double that astronomical amount to pay for a simultaneous water project, which will probably end up costing more than the sewer plant upgrade.
The repercussions of a wasterwater treatment plant upgrade and a water project institituted at virtually the same time are staggering.
My sewer rate this past billing cycle was $158. This is roughly $75 per month. At that rate, the city made nothing towards paying for their new sewer plant. I think it is safe to assume that the sewer rates must do no less than double to pay for a new treatment plant, and I suspect that is a hugely CONSERVATIVE estimate. Thus my sewer rate will increase to no less than $150 per month. If a water project is also initiated, then conservately it will cost as much as the sewer plant upgrade. So now we are talking a water/sewer bill monthly of no less than $300 per month.
However, in listening to discussions at City Council meetings, it sounds like the water project will be triple to quadruple the cost of the sewer project. If that is the case, then my sewer/water bill could run anywhere from $450 to $600 per month. But that was assuming a conservative estimate of the increase in the sewer cost. If the sewer rate was tripled, a more likely scenario, then I would be faced with a water sewer bill anywhere from $675 to $900 per month.
My water/sewer charges have gone from $75 per month to almost $200 per month, even though we have reduced usage, eliminated our lawns,and our kids are off at college so there are only two people using water in the house.
As for ability to pay, I am not a senior citizen (not quite) but all of us lucky enough to have jobs are on “fixed incomes” (I haven’t heard of anyone – outside of Bruce Colby – getting a raise recently). These proposed fees are unsustainable at even half the projected rates for almost everyone, not just the lower end of the salary scale. My kids’ college tuition is not going down just so that I can have more to pay my water bill.
If the City council doesn’t put the kibosh on this project quickly, then it’s time for recall petitions to circulate. Fast.
$200 per month for sewer, will conservatively double to $400 per month for sewer. If water project is instituted at same time, water/sewer bill will conservately be $400 x 2 = $800 per month – and that is a CONSERVATIVE estimate. If the sewer fee triples, then you are looking at water/sewer fee of anywhere from $1200 to $2300 per month.
Does anyone know enough how to figure in inflation for these figures? You almost need an actuarial expert to extrapolate these figures – but I think it is safe to say the water/sewer rate increases are going to be way above what people can afford to pay.
[b]”My water/sewer charges have gone from $75 per month to almost $200 per month, even though we have reduced usage”[/b]
The reason your utility bill has been going up so much — mine has skyrocketted, too — is not mostly because of water projects. It is because of the tremendous increases in salaries and pensions paid to city workers. That’s the story. That’s the reason we need to stop enriching “public servants” as if taxpayers and ratepayers have an endless font of wealth to draw from.
In the last five years, salary, benefits and pension expenses from the general fund have been shifted into the enterprise fund. The money in the enterprise fund comes from your utility rates. In order to cover the greatly increased enterprise fund, rates for water and sewer had to be doubled and doubled again.
The reason the expenses had to be moved out of the general fund was because our city council 1) quadrupled the value of the retirement packages they give all safety employees; 2) doubled the value of the retirement packages they give non-safety employees; 3) passed on to taxpayers all of the increases for a decade of medical insurance inflation which ran at least double to CPI; and 4) inflated base salaries of most employees at twice the rate of their COLAs and inflated the base salaries of some very well connected employees at 4 times the rate of the all-urban CPI.
This excess will only get worse as the city upgrades capital infrastructure.
Do you have a reference on your belief in a drier
California? I went to a thing by UC faculty at the Varsity a few years ago and they could not make that prediction. They thought that global warming would make CA hotter and wetter or hotter and drier but didn’t know which one would happen. They said hotter and wetter was more easily managed so if its hotter and drier you are worried about Davis needs all the water rights it can get not fewer.
Yep–April 2, 2009 Los Angeles Times ([url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate2-2009apr02,0,1696993.story[/url])
[blockquote]
Report outlines possible effects of warming on California
A compilation of research papers suggests that climate change will mean the state will have less water, experience a loss of cropland and see soaring wildfire rates.
By Bettina Boxall
April 2, 2009
As California warms in coming decades, farmers will have less water, the state could lose more than a million acres of cropland and forest fire rates will soar, according to a broad-ranging state report released Wednesday.
The document, which officials called the “the ultimate picture to date” of global warming’s likely effect on California, consists of 37 research papers that examine an array of issues including water supply, air pollution and property losses.
Without actions to limit greenhouse gas emissions, “severe and costly climate impacts are possible and likely across California,” warned state environmental protection secretary Linda Adams.
[/blocquote]
[b]”Do you have a reference on your belief in a drier California?”[/b]
Nimby, you should read this article ([url]http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3162&context=anrcs/californiaagriculture[/url]) by UC Davis Professor Bryan Weare ([url]http://www.lawr.ucdavis.edu/directory_facultypages.htm?id=32[/url]). He’s an expert on how global warming will affect weather patterns in California. He’s a member of the IPCC.
[i]”In California, the impacts of global warming are likely to include reduced water availability and quality, poorer air quality, associated economic consequences, biodiversity shifts and health effects. The changes are expected to continue at an increasing pace well into the next century, perhaps outstripping our scientific, economic and social ability to cope with them.
“By 2050, the snow lines of mountains such as Shasta could go up by as much as 1,000 feet, reducing summer water availability and increasing the risk of winter flooding.”[/i]
Just paid my City Services Bill for a household of 2. Total bill was $187.87 for 59 days.
Water: $32.10
Sanitation: $56.72
Storm sewer: $16.78
Sanitary sewer: $60.13
Municipal service tax: $12.43
Public Safety tax: $9.81
What are other cities around us paying for these same services and are they up to State imposed discharge standards?
Reading that article its hard to see how getting water rights now would be detrimental to Davis. If water becomes a more scarce commodity having water rights would be a good thing. If you believe the article you cited, something that one person cited in it claimed,is based on pretty crude models, then you shouldn’t be worried about development on land on the peripery of Davis since the article says California will lose 1.5 million acres from ag production due to water shortages.
Global warming might affect the amount of water available to California Water Project customers. That is irrelevant to us. Models indicate more rainfall on our side of the valley, making more water available for reservoirs on the east side of the coast range. There would also be more groundwater in our aquifers. Global warming models have a terrible track record to date, but those conclusions make sense based on the effect of warmer water, warmer air, and the way winter storms move in through the Valley.
The impact of global warming on California water is very complex and to make a statement such as “farmers will have less water” is simplistic and misleading. There are hundreds of water districts in California, each with a unique mix of water sources. You have to know where the water comes from and then make an educated guess about the impact of more rain versus less snow on that water district. We get NONE of our water from melting snow here.
Here are the parts of the article that actually pertain to rainfall and water supply:
“By mid-century, annual precipitation in Southern California could decline by 10%, and by 5% farther north, in a band near the state’s midpoint, according to the climate report. Little change is projected in the most northern reaches of California.
Cayan cautioned that “our tools to get at this are still pretty crude. These are only rough numbers.”
The Sierra Nevada snowpack, which stores water and then slowly releases it to the river systems that feed the state’s major reservoirs, will shrink by at least a quarter over the next four decades, previous studies have concluded.
Combined with drier and hotter conditions, that will create water shortages expected to fall most heavily on the state’s agricultural sector in the Central Valley.
Urban areas should be able to make up for shortfalls by buying water from farms, which use most of the supplies in the state.
But that will drive up the cost of water, prompting farmers to fallow cropland and abandon irrigated pasture and less profitable crops such as cotton, alfalfa and rice.
UC Davis agricultural economics professor Richard Howitt estimates that the Central Valley’s farm acreage will shrink by roughly 1.5 million acres, or 20%, by 2050.
Revenue losses will be less steep — about 10% or $3 billion a year — thanks to shifts to more profitable fruits, vegetables and nuts.
The three water studies included in the climate report “describe relatively modest impacts of climate change on the water sector,” according to the document.
But in a news conference, Adams and UC Berkeley economics professor Michael Hanemann said those findings were based on a “rosy scenario” of average water conditions as well as the legal and physical ability to move massive amounts of water from one user to another.”
So, they’re predicting a 5% reduction in rainfall in No Cal, and not here. A possible loss of farmland if Central Valley farmers choose to sell their water rights to urban areas, and a 10% loss of farm income. The impact of global warming on California agriculture seems to be pretty manageable, particularly if a couple more reservoirs are built. Some of the crop changes (cotton to almonds, for example) would be arguably better for the environment anyway.
[b]”Models indicate more rainfall on our side of the valley, … Global warming models have a [u]terrible track record[/u] to date”[/b]
Explain?
“Explain?”
Another way of saying it would be “there is not an overlap between modeled and observed trends at the 95% level…” of probablility. ([url]http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/prediction_and_forecasting/index.html#001425[/url])
Don, I don’t know enough about the science to buy or disagree with what that guy from Colorado is saying. It sounds convincing. However, I wonder if the problem is the 8-year sample-size he is using is too small? I know, for example, you can predict trends regarding broad equity market averages with a high degree of confidence looking at any 20 year period. However, when you get much lower than 20 years, any single extraordinary event within the time frame can cause your trend average to fall out of an expected range. Likewise, in baseball, you can make fairly good predictions about a large group of players of similar make-up over a large enough sample size of games. But predicting over too few games will greatly increase your margin of error; and presuming that what happens to the broader group will always apply at the individual level introduces, again, a much greater error factor. It seems to hold in all statistical analyses that insufficient sample size presents problems in projections.
It irks me that when City staff and the City Council consider the water supply and water treatment plans, there is no mention of the estimated increase in utility costs for the average homeowner. The result is that few people in Davis are really paying attention to these issues. Maybe the problem is with the reporting in The Enterprise. If there was a front page article in The Enterprise with a headline stating that the average homeowner’s water and sewer costs would go up to $1,000 per month in today’s dollars (which article would then be picked up by the Sacramento Bee), we would have the necessary public interest and public comment. So what do we do to get The Enterprise off its butt?
Instead this was the headline in today’s non-print “paper”:
New water plans could reduce high cost to city, ratepayers
So, how does agrcultural water allotment in Yolo/Solano/Sacto Counties play into this. And how are farmers, especially large corporate farms, charged for their water use?
“So, how does agrcultural water allotment in Yolo/Solano/Sacto Counties play into this”
Here ([url]http://www.dcn.org/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/chapt2.html[/url])is a good overview, although it is about 20 years old. Water district members pay a standby fee and a rate per acre-foot.
I haven’t had time to read David’s blog post or the comments today, but I want to comment on tomorrow’s meeting.
First, I don’t know why staff is making a recommendation on the water treatment plant before the council has a chance to hear the consultants present their report, and to answer questions. (The consultants are not available tomorrow, but would be available on the 28th).
I talked with one of the consultants today, and he completely agreed that it would be too costly to undertake both projects at once. The consultants recommend in their report that we proceed with the surface water project, but that we postpone the wastewater treatment plant. Yet public works ignores their recommendation, and recommends that we proceed with the wastewater treatment plant.
[b]”The consultants recommend in their report that we proceed with the surface water project.”[/b]
Sue, I have a few questions:
1. How many millions of dollars is the surface water project expected to cost for the Davis share of it?
2. When you break down that expense into a “per household share,” what is the total projected liability for the water project to each Davis household?
3. In constant dollar terms, how much per year will the surface water project add to the utility bill of a typical Davis household?
4. In percentage terms, how much of the Davis liability for the surface water project will be shifted to (and therefore paid by) non-residential water users, such as local businesses?
If you don’t know the answers to these questions, I think they might be good ones to present to staff.
A report to the City of Woodland in 2007 indicated that the cost to Woodland would be $139 million in present dollars ($199 million in “escalated dollars”). Woodland bears 52% of the project cost, Davis 44%, and UC Davis the remainder. In the case of Woodland the report says that there would be $84 million cost to replace current aging wells if the surface project is not implemented. So a good question would be how many wells Davis would have to replace if the project is not implemented, and how soon.
Funding is a combination of revenue bonds and rate increases, so it might be hard to give a “per household share” that is meaningful.
The costs and benefits of this project need to include:
–cost of replacing existing, aging wells
–reduced cost of wastewater treatment. If the surface water project obviates the need for costly wastewater treatment, that is a major benefit. State water quality standards are going to get more stringent.
Sue has commented before about delaying the water project and doing the waste-water treatment first. I’m beginning to think it would be more logical and cost-effective to do it the other way around.
“how much of the Davis liability for the surface water project will be shifted to (and therefore paid by) non-residential water users, such as local businesses?”
As I’ve said before, the rate structure for water in Davis is entirely a decision to be made by the city council. They can set lifeline rates, can have different rates for business customers (sigh), or have a steeper rate system based on actual usage. Staff proposes the rates, but it is the city council’s decision. I would urge that the current council set a lifeline rate for both water and sewer now.
No on Nimbies:
We can get all the water rights in the world, but if there is no water, what difference does it make? Climate change is going to mean hotter, drier climate here; less rain, less snow, less snow melt, less water in the rivers. So, even with the water rights, and even if we do proceed with the huge water project bringing in water from the river, sticking the rate payers with enormous costs for a boon doggle, we will get no water except what comes from our ground water wells. We need to be looking at ways to live with what we have got now rather than proceeding with very illj-conceived projects such as the Sac River project.
I have not seen any mention of a major issue when the Sac River water project was brought up previously, and that is the cost to make that water safe to drink. River water has lower salts so helps us in that way, but it contains many chemicals and compounds that are probably not safe to drink. I refer not just to pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, but to pharmaceuticals, hormones, antibiotics, and so on that are in our rivers and that we have no idea how to address. For some, there is no method to treat them; for others we have no idea to what level they should be treatd, as there is no known “safe” drinking water level. We have no idea of the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of some of the toxics in river water. This is an issue all over this country, not just here. We need to think about what we are drinking.
To determine the safety of river water and to clean it up to safe levels for various chemicals adds another huge cost that no one is factoring in here yet.
Don’t forget that according to state law, developers have to show that they have water sufficient for 20 years. It is my understanding, though someone may wish to correct me, that it is actually the city by providing the water hook-ups to a development that is, in effect, guaranteeing the water supply….after, of course, the City Council has approved the development proposal and after they have decided where and how they are going to get that water supply…more wells, Sacto water, etc., for the development.
So, are these projects to meet the needs of current residents or future development that stretches to the horizon? This is not a nimby position. But a statement about what the implications of the state law are for the Davis community and who pays???!!!
Nancy Price
“Climate change is going to mean hotter, drier climate here; less rain, less snow, less snow melt, less water in the rivers.”
There is no evidence that we will have a drier climate on the west side of the Valley.
I’m not challenging your statement, Don, or agreeing with “forget costly.” But what happens “on the west side of the Valley” is not what’s at issue in this discussion. It’s what happens with regard to the Sacramento River, which is principally (though not exclusively) fed by snow melt and rain on the east side of the Valley.
From what I have read, I don’t think it is projected that we will have “less rain” on either side. We might even have more rain. The problem is twofold: with less snowpack, we won’t have as much river flow in the dry summer season; and we cannot build enough dams to create new reservoirs to make up for that loss of snowpack.*
*Bryan Weare told me that.
The older your water rights the more seniority you have when push comes to shove. Without getting into too much law, since I am not a lawyer, when there are water shortages the state allocates everyone a proportional amount of water based on the amount available and their water rights so having rights is better than not having rights.
As for water quality I am not a chemist either but it does seem that there is much more demand from places like LA and the San Joaquin Valley for the same water that “better quality” seems quick to condemn. I guess LA is just less picky than Davis.
“so having rights is better than not having rights.”
No because you have neither factor in cost nor alternatives. Having water rights might be worse rather than better given costs of building a supply system and the opportunity costs of funding this alternative as opposed to another.
Don:
Past estimates of the total cost for the water supply project indicate that it will be in to $400 million dollar range. At last report, the University has drawn out of the project. Staff said that Woodland would pick up the University share of the cost, but I find that very hard to believe. How would the Woodland voters feel about paying more than half?
So, if we split the cost 50-50 with Woodland, it seems as if, according to preliminary estimates, it would cost very roughly $200 million for Davis. This is the capital costs alone; it doesn’t include the cost of maintaining two separate systems and purchasing water in the summer.
Rich, the Sites and Temperance Flat Reservoirs between them would add about 3.1 million acre-feet of storage (Oroville has 3.5 million, for comparison). Those two projects are probably the furthest along in the planning process and most likely to be built within the next couple of decades. Sites Reservoir in particular would increase storage on “our” side of the Valley, and could readily be filled with spring runoff. As to whether that is enough water storage, it depends on which water districts that water would service. More than likely there would be a complex series of water transfers redirecting that water and Sac River water between farmers and municipal water districts. Bryan is undoubtedly correct if he means that it doesn’t all add up to enough water for the California Water Project customers and Southern California.
Sue, I don’t know how likely Woodland is to pick up even more of the cost. My understanding is their water problems and infrastructure problems are worse than ours. You can see that they might find a better cost-benefit analysis than Davis, given the number of wells they need to replace. I don’t know where Davis wells are in terms of aging and replacement.
It wasn’t going to be 50-50 in the first place, but I wouldn’t argue with the likelihood of $200 million for Davis’ share of the water project. But if Davis doesn’t have to spend $200 million on new waste water treatment, because the surface water mitigates that problem, then things don’t look as dire as they used to in terms of total cost for these projects.
Wrong, one could speculate that if water volumes decrease the value of water rights would increase although David is the one who said there would be less water available due to global warming something that is quite speculative but seems to be getting reiterated on this blog. My point is that if that were to come to pass the value of those water rights would increase more than inflation and it would be prudent to invest in those water rights sooner rather than later.
There are many communities that use river water for their drinking water supply, granted. That does not meant they are less picky than Davis. We have only relatively recently learned just how badly polluted our surface waters are, and many folks have been drinking this water because we did not realize how polluted it was. Now that we know, we should definitely err on the side of caution when proposing to use river water as our drinking water source.