Joint Water Project with Woodland About To Be Approved –
According to comments set up at the joint council session, only elected officials would serve as members of the Governing Board. Currently the board would be made up of four members with non-tiebreaking provision, meaning and emphasizing the need for consensus building.
Both Woodland and Davis have this item on their agenda on Tuesday. If approved, the cities could have the project working and begin taking in water from the Sacramento River by 2015.
City staff estimates that the cost of the project will be roughly $325 million with Davis’ share being $151 million or slightly less than half the cost.
The appalling fact is hidden in the Davis Enterprise article this morning. The concern all along from residents and the minority on the council has been one of cost to the ratepayers. Many are concerned that with cost estimates likely to double, that people on fixed incomes will be literally priced out of their homes.
The Enterprise this morning quotes, Davis Utilities Manager Jacques DeBra as arguing that this will save homeowners money. First, he argues that it will save in hidden costs such as buying water softeners and bottled drinking water and replacing fixtures that have been eroded from the high concentration of minerals in the ground water supply.
The biggest problem with that argument is that it is probably not true. It is true we would take in water from the Sacramento River, but there are considerable questions as to when we would do that and how much. River water would be available most reliably in wet months and in wet years. However, even the most optimistic estimates suggest that river water would simply augment our existing water portfolio and diversify it.
During dry years and dry months, we will still use plenty of well water which means people are not going to ditch their softeners and other means by which to filter their water. Indeed, the article acknowledges that much although it spins it into a positive, suggesting that surface water tests back, and in peak months it will be more reliable as “communities can tap into the backup ground water supply if the primary surface water supply runs out.”
Given uncertainties about rainfall patterns, climate change, and the possible water grab by Southern California, who knows if this will prove a reliable source of water.
Speaking for myself, using a Brita filter is a relatively inexpensive means to get decent drinking water, so a changeover for me, would not save me a dime.
The bigger problem however is that while Mr. DeBra acknowledges that water costs will go up under this plan, and he does not specify how much, he suggests that without an upgrade to the system, Davis and Woodland will eventually be out of compliance with state and federal water quality regulations. He argues that water rates would probably still double between 2010 and 2020.
This is the first time to my memory having sat through water discussions for three years that we have been threatened with that kind of a rate increase if we did not add to the water supply.
Mr. DeBra then continues to spin that the rate increase will be temporary (as in ten years being temporary):
“It will go up, but then it will flatten out after about 10 years … so it’s not like the community will be looking at forever large rate increases. What we’re trying to do is we’re trying to get a big ‘bang for the buck.’ That’s what this project will deliver – a better product, a better service and a more reliable water supply.”
While I appreciate what he is trying to say, for all intents and purposes, ten years is not a temporary rate increase, it is a permanent one. The impact of the rate increase will wane over time, but you are asking people to bite a bullet for a long period of time that they cannot simply plan around. Temporary might be one month or even one year. It would be like saying, you will temporarily be unemployed for five years–that is not temporary. For fixed income people, there is no way to mitigate for ten years of rate increases. For the aged, ten years might very well be the rest of their lives.
The idea that this is going to produce a better, cheaper, and more reliable system seems very questionable given the realities of water. This is why residents of Davis and Yolo County should pay particular attention to the discussion of the Delta. Taking water out of the Delta will put increased pressure upstream in the Sacramento River. That situation has not been resolved as of yet and the idea that we are going to get reliable river water may in fact be a delusion. We need to really think hard about this, but for the first time, a decision will be made and if we go forward with this, we will be locked into a course of action.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If you reduce salt concentration you will at least extend the life of household infrastructure; filters, fixtures and softeners. For those who think that the Sacramento River is a poor water source there are millions of people and farmers with millions of acres to the south of us who disagree.
Ten years is a long time to the young and near-sighted but to people who have 30 year mortgages it is just a short time marginal additional cost of ownership. If you are worried about increased water costs pricing people out of their homes you would be better off doing something about the high cost of housing in Davis where it still costs about 300 sq ft to own. If we are concerned about the costs to senior citizens we should look at building lower cost senior housing. If we are worried about the cost to students we should look at building more rentals to lower the cost of rent. If you are worried about what you are drinking you should embrace the additional cost as a way to lower medical costs. If you are worried about the people who have lived here a long time and have a low cost basis and subsequent tax basis you are more worried about the haves than the have nots. The Peoples Republican Vanguard of Davis manning the barricades against the future.
Maybe on this idea, too, we could exempt seniors and other low-income folks who qualify like we do with the park tax/lighting&landscape maintenance and just about every other add-on we have to the property tax bill. Hey!! I know, let’s scrap Prop.13-now would be a great time to do that, wouldn’t it?? The chat about water rates doubling and even tripling(to be conservative!)for the next decade and then leveling out(maybe) seems to keep that idea on the sidelines, where it belongs.
Unfortunately, according to law, there can be no discounts in water/sewer fees for seniors on fixed incomes.
If city staff has to lie about the efficacy of this project, then I have grave doubts as to it being a plus for the city. The problem is that we have had 2 independent analyists also saying the city must move forward with the water project that takes from the Sacramento River. The train was already started downhill the last time this topic was brought up at a City Council meeting. How much chance do you think citizens have now of stopping this monolith gaining momentum on a steep decline?
Also, if we do nothing, the chances are the city is going to be out of compliance with federal law. I would suggest that we remind this joint powers authority to strike every advantageous deal it can to keep costs down.
Furthermore, I noticed in the papers a quote from city staff saying water increases would only be about $20 to $30 a month. I don’t believe this whopper for a second! Last August, my sewer bill alone went up 400%, then was readjusted to 200%, then was readjusted a bit more downward after that. Let’s face it – city staff is trying to use smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that your water and sewer bill is going to be astronomically high once the real rate increases go into effect.
Take a look at your City of Davis bill, and triple it. That is very likely what you will be charged in the future, from the discussions I have heard. My bill right now is about $281 bimonthly (every other month). That means after the rate hikes, it will be nearly $900 bimonthly. THINK ABOUT IT…
For those of you who think you can conserve your way out of price increases, as Sue Greenwald has reminded us over and over again, we still have to pay for this project, no matter how little or much water we use. Massive rate hikes are coming – despite water conservation.
This IS a bad deal for seniors, but then again, a LOT of us have our houses paid off or are paying off those $183 a month mortgages we got when we bought 20 years ago. Besides, with any luck, a lot of us won’t have to pay for the next ten years. (If you catch my drift.) Assuming that people are rich or poor based on their age is faulty reasoning.
I don’t understand the point about our water being out of compliance with federal regs if we don’t do this. I thought Davis had a problem with the waste water treatment regs (which we will have even if we go forward with this water project), not with the regs regarding water coming into our homes. Since it is clear that Southern Cal will also continue in its efforts to grab as much Delta water as possible, I also don’t understand why anyone believes we will be able to obtain much Sacramento River water.
Can someone please explain to me what I am missing?
I live in W. Sac. I did not attend your meeting, but wanted to tell you about some issues that we have experienced. We (W. Sac.) bought a new water system (in the early ’90’s) after we became a city in 1987. We are currently paying for the water and the voter surcharge $33.40 monthly.
After talking with people in other cities already on water meters (which we are by law forced to do in 2013); it will go up at least 50% to 100% or more depending on your family size and the square feet of lawn needing water. Along with the upcoming water meters which had to be installed if not already installed (especially in older neighborhoods); we were required to have fluoride (hydrofluosilic acid) added to our drinking water.
Do your research.
The real driving force behind taping into Sacramento surface water is to meet the legislative statute that requires that water supplies be clearly identified for any new residential development. Without this potential additional water,the future of massive Davis peripheral development sprawl becomes very problematic.
At what point can a citizen initiative abort this “train” that all seem to feel has already left the station? Any “legal eagles” out there know the answer?
As soon as they get the signatures.
Sigh. Here we go again.
“The appalling fact is hidden in the Davis Enterprise article this morning. The concern all along from residents and the minority on the council has been one of cost to the ratepayers. Many are concerned that with cost estimates likely to double, that people on fixed incomes will be literally priced out of their homes.”
What appalling fact? The cost? That has been a matter of public record for months and months. The fact that it is moving forward? It has been studied, debated, and the subject of numerous council actions over the years. There is no subterfuge here. The process is going forward in public, as it should. What is your source for the notion that cost estimates are “likely to double”? Or is that mere speculation on your part?
The rates the city charges are set by the council. Lifeline rates can be established. A tiered rate structure based on water usage can be implemented. That can be done right now.
“However, even the most optimistic estimates suggest that river water would simply augment our existing water portfolio and diversify it.”
Yes, that is the idea.
“Given uncertainties about rainfall patterns, climate change, and the possible water grab by Southern California, who knows if this will prove a reliable source of water.”
You keep making this argument, but rainfall patterns and climate change are simply not factors in this decision.
If by “water grab” you are referring to the possibility of a peripheral canal increasing Delta water flow to Southern California and valley farmers, that is a downstream use. As far as I know, they can’t supercede an upstream water user who has established water rights. Were they to do so, that would be quite a precedent.
“The bigger problem however is that while Mr. DeBra acknowledges that water costs will go up under this plan, and he does not specify how much, he suggests that without an upgrade to the system, Davis and Woodland will eventually be out of compliance with state and federal water quality regulations. He argues that water rates would probably still double between 2010 and 2020.
This is the first time to my memory having sat through water discussions for three years that we have been threatened with that kind of a rate increase if we did not add to the water supply.”
This is a key issue. If the surface water project is not built, it increases the need for an upgrade for waste water treatment due to the salinity of our ground water. It isn’t a “threat.” It is a reality. Just do some research into what Dixon has gone through with waste water regulations and fines.
“The idea that this is going to produce a better, cheaper, and more reliable system seems very questionable given the realities of water.”
It appears that you are responding to the quotes by DuBra. He didn’t say “cheaper.” He said “That’s what this project will deliver – a better product, a better service and a more reliable water supply.”
There is no question it would be better quality water. The salinity and pH of our ground water is very high. Having more diverse water supplies will allow the city to deal with quality issues that show up from time to time in wells. As older wells need to be replaced (which most of them need to be in the next 10 – 20 years), the surface water gives more flexibility about the timing of that expense. Some probably would not need to be replaced.
“This is why residents of Davis and Yolo County should pay particular attention to the discussion of the Delta. Taking water out of the Delta will put increased pressure upstream in the Sacramento River. That situation has not been resolved as of yet and the idea that we are going to get reliable river water may in fact be a delusion.”
That would only be true if we were downstream from the Delta. Once our water rights have been locked in and the conveyance system is in place, what happens in the Delta is of little consequence to Yolo County water users.
ol’ timer’s got it right.
In addition to the increase in rates, Davisites should have grave concerns the project will not only be built, but also managed and operated for a period of time (2, 5 or 10 years) by a private multi-national water services corporation, such as Veolia Environment.
Akron, Ohio, and Minneapolis, MN, recently decided NOT to “privatize” their public water utilities; in Califonria, Stockton reversed privatization and Felton bought their private water utility to take it public.
The reason to keep water utilities public is to retain local, democractic control of such an essential service. Should Davis follow the public-private parnership (PPP) model, profits will have to squeezed out of the fees-for-service to satisfy the expectations of corpoate investors and CEOs. This is just one of many reasons to oppose privatization.
A Public Records Act request should be made of the City and Public Works Department to uncover what private water/environment corporations they have held discussions with to date.
Thank you Don Shor.
I really struggle to understand why the uproar, unless it is just furor that water is going to cost more, and that is going to be the case regardless of whether we tap into Sac River or not. Almost all residents of CA are going to pay more for water than we have in the past, because we have chosen to live in a state whose rainfall pattern does not meet the needs of its citizens without significant intervention. We are fortunate that we are so near the Sac River that this solution is an option for us.
W/ respect to David’s argument that people will not “give up” their water softeners etc, I think he is probably right for those that already have them – they are pretty much worthless to be sold now. However, once we have access to higher quality river water, then people may choose to stop using them (saving the cost of the salt, which for me is approximately $100/yr) as long as the water quality stays high and new residents or owners may choose not to purchase a new one until such time as we have to revert to well water.
Nancy makes a good point it should be a public utility.
Adam, the issues here are two fold people don’t want to pay and they don’t want development. Many are willing to live with poor water quality to keep their rates down and by the misguided belief that if you don’t build it they won’t come.
My issue is that I don’t want people to be priced out of their homes. I’m also concerned that we will pay all of this money and not end up with any water. If you don’t believe that a real possibility watch how the Delta discussions pan out. Steinberg wouldn’t even allow the Delta counties to have representation in the talks.
Adam: With regards to water softeners, my point is that if we were going to river water year round, then there would be some savings there, but as I understand the process, we are not. So part of the year, we will still rely heavily on well water which means that we won’t have reliably better quality water much of the time–and I think over time, increasingly so because I think the river is going to be tapped out as a source pretty quickly.
This has all the characteristics of a special-interest “perfect storm”. Public works management and experts city,developer and business interests and yes, even those like Don, whose passion and/or livelihood would be helped if Davis water would allow for a greater range of landscaping plants, all the special interests appear to be in alignment.
This will inevitably come to Davis citizens gathering signatures for an initiative that will put some brakes and controls on this project.
“What is your source for the notion that cost estimates are “likely to double”? Or is that mere speculation on your part?”
Sitting through hours of City Council discussions on this issue, I would say we will be lucky if our water/sewer rates only double. They are much more likely to triple.
“A tiered rate structure based on water usage can be implemented. That can be done right now.”
We cannot conserve our way out of the costs of consuming water. Ratepayers still must pay for the upkeep of the wells, and the fixed costs of the Sacramento River water project (at no less than $157 million), even assuming best case scenario that a sewer plant upgrade is not needed (which I very much doubt). Water is literally going to be a “golden” commodity in the future for CA.
“As far as I know, they can’t supercede an upstream water user who has established water rights.”
There are others “ahead of us” in line for Sacramento River water, that will receive a higher priority. In the summer months, when we most need the water, it may not be available. That is the big $24,000 question – will the Sacramento River water be available when we most need it?
“This is a key issue. If the surface water project is not built, it increases the need for an upgrade for waste water treatment due to the salinity of our ground water.”
Point well taken. The THEORY is if we institute the Sacramento River water project first, because it is so much cleaner relative to well water, we may not need a sewer plant upgrade. IN PRACTICE, I suspect we will end up with some sort of sewer plant upgrade, but only time will tell. I know city staff will tend to push for the sewer plant upgrade, since they already decided it was in the CITY’s best interests (notice I did not say the ratepayers’ best interests).
My concern is that the water/sewer rate increases are going to be so high, it will price many right out of their homes. Thus it behooves the Joint Powers Authority that is going to be established between the cities of Davis and Woodland, to make sure to keep ratepayers in mind when dealing with the Regional Water Quality Management Board, for instance. My understanding is that there may be some softening of positions in regard to the regulations, bc of a widening recognition of the cost problem.
However, I don’t see how citizens can stop the juggernaut that has already been put in place and is running downhill. At a former City Council meeting, it was decided to create a joint authority; two independent analysts determined we need to move ahead with the Sacramento River Water Project at a minimum. If anyone from the public can propose a viable alternative, I’d love to hear it. I suspect the silence will be deafening… Some problems have no good solution, and my guess is this is one of them.
I also would like to note Davis has a bad habit of doing things the most expensive way possible, a pattern that needs to change in these tough economic times.
“If anyone from the public can propose a viable alternative, I’d love to hear it.”
Members of the Joint Authority board, directly elected by the voters, specifically to represent their interests, could be part of a citizen-initiative.
Don:
“What is your source for the notion that cost estimates are “likely to double”? Or is that mere speculation on your part?”
That is what Jacques DeBra said in the Enterprise.
Our water priority rights into the river are a legitimate question, so perhaps someone can explain the nature of the rights that we would have into the river.
Elaine is right to question the upstream uses, but I don’t think there is any doubt that having the river water will improve our water quality and decrease our impact on the aquifers below us, thereby improving our chances of having water in the aquifer should we need it.
It is time for the citizens of Davis to consider prioritizing gathering as much water supply from diverse sources as possible. Cost should be kept as low as possible, but it is a reality that water costs are going to be substantially higher going forward. The increased monthly cost for improving reliability and quality will be small compared to the cost of decreased housing values if we don’t have sufficient amounts of reasonable quality water.
If you want to make sure that we have enough water available from the river, implore your state representatives to get busy putting together a plan to build more storage capacity in the northern part of the state.
People are already priced out of their homes through no growth policies that prevent people from being able to afford to live here.
First that’s an inaccurate statement. People are not being priced out of their homes through no growth policies. They may be prevented from purchasing a home–and that’s debatable.
Second, if they are, you suggest making it worse?
“If you want to make sure that we have enough water available from the river, implore your state representatives to get busy putting together a plan to build more storage capacity in the northern part of the state.”
This is a good point. I have thought this for quite some time, but term limits have hurt us in this area. Fazio was always trying to push for water projects for CA at the federal level, but was termed out of office. As a result, CA will never gain seniority on the necessary committees that would approve water projects for CA.
Fazio retired
If the levees fail and the Sac river becomes poluted and unusable for a while- what then? will the system be able to cut it off and revert back to groundwater?
How much water can the sacramento river give?
[quote]Fazio was always trying to push for water projects for CA at the federal level, but was termed out of office.[/quote]No term limits in Congress. [quote]Fazio retired.[/quote] He retired from Congress, but he did not retire. Vic Fazio changed hats, leaving “public service” to become one of the highest paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. In other words, like so many members of Congress, he cashed in on his connections. The Washingtonian Magazine ranks Fazio as one of the 50 most powerful lobbyists in D.C. ([url]http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/4264.html[/url]):
[i][b]36.[/b] Vic Fazio, Akin Gump. One of several former officeholders in the law firm built by Robert Strauss, Vic Fazio is regarded as one of DC’s smartest and most effective lobbyists. In Congress he worked on the Armed Services Committee and later on Appropriations. At Akin Gump he advises such clients as medical-manufacturing giant Johnson & Johnson and works with a former colleague from across the aisle, Bill Paxon, on the $760,000 account of the casino-owning Agua Caliente tribe.[/i]
David – Will El Macero and UCD be included in this scam too or are they free to drill baby drill and then spill baby spill? And aren’t there some long term financing options that can help flatten the rate increase curve?
I believe the water sourcing and the upgraded water treatment cost numbers will be closer to $650,000,000 -$750,000,000 based on the City’s earlier quotes. So then a $6,000 – 8,000 average single family residence cost per year is very likely . . . just to flush your toilet, shower, do laundry, and water the cactus? Time to require gray water catchment and recycling along with rain water cisterns on all new residential and commercial building . . . and a HUGE increase in the water/sewer tap fees!
“Time to require gray water catchment and recycling along with rain water cisterns on all new residential and commercial building . . . and a HUGE increase in the water/sewer tap fees!”
Once again an advocate for passing on the costs to newcomers. The landed gentry should never be asked to do what the newcomers should pay. Of course this means that only millionaires should buy in Davis.
And what you are proposing doesn’t pass on the costs to newcomers? It passes on costs to everyone for a service we may never get.
“A service we may never get.”
What do you think they are going to spend 150 million for nothing? Oh the Bush years were so effective at wasting money that no public works project will ever go forward again because no one is left to believe government is nothing but corrupt and can’t do anything correctly. Davis is not the Pentagon.
“What do you think they are going to spend 150 million for nothing?”
At a minimum, yes. Look at what happened with the Delta debate–Delta representatives were frozen out of the discussion and we could without representation have water diverted from the delta to the valley via the peripheral canal.
What’s to stop them next time from taking water from the Sacramento River and taking enough water away so that we get none? I’ll tell you what–absolutely nothing, they have the votes to do it, it can happen. So we pay a helluva a lot of money and get nothing for it. It has nothing to do with your flippant comment about the Pentagon. It is out of the hands of the council entirely. We could pay a lot, double our rates, if not more, and get nothing for it, which probably will mean our rates go up far more. What’s the contingency then? Have you thought this through? You are so bent on getting good tasting water and promoting development that you are turning a blind eye to political realities.
The argument all along has been we must stake our claim, but our claim means NOTHING in the face of legislative action. Oh you think the courts will stop it? Look at Owens Valley. Oh you think Northern California will rise up? Heck Steinberg and Simitian ARE from Northern California and they were willing to sell us out on the peripheral canal. What do you think will protect our water claims? Don’t give me a flippant or pithy answer, actually intelligently address the question, because the bottom line is that you cannot. There is no guarantee. You have only assumptions and then you’ll be back in five years whining about something else pricing you out of your home that you probably hope to have moved into by then.
Actually, Vincente, Owens Valley exactly disproves your point. All of the purchases, bribery, corruption, and other sordid activities that were undertaken on behalf of Los Angeles were precisely for the purpose of obtaining water rights. And the subsequent lawsuits and settlements were intended to protect the upstream users; i.e., Mono Lake and Owens Valley.
Wow, Vince a little hot eh? The chances of water users to the south taking water from upstream of us and cutting us off is pretty small. Its not 1900, Arnold in no Mulholland and the delta is not some out of the way place like the Owens Valley. Davis is not going to be treated like Robert Townes Chinatown. LA hasn’t won a water war in decades, they lost Mono Lake, the Colorado River and the first attempt to build the peripheral canal.I won’t say the chance of your scenario is zero but approaching it from above. Why would they divert it from farther than they need to at huge costs? Whatever happens in the Delta will take a long time to implement and a much longer time to come back around to getting more water in the future. The issue in the Delta is robbing the environment for agriculture. Whatever happens there cutting off the water supply to human domestic and industrial uses in Davis to grow cotton and fill pools in LA isn’t going to happen in your lifetime. A more likely reality is that LA Department of Water and Power buys Conaway Ranch with Yolo County as the lead local agency as mitigation and we are guarenteed water rights in the deal. I’m mad about Steinberg too as we all should be but having Davis shoot itself in the foot is not the correct response although it would be a very Davis type of solution. Vince I respectfully think your barking up the wrong tree.