Slowly but surely, Davis is moving forward to a system that will require a huge capital expenditure of resources in order to provide river water. The question that I have, one that continues to arise is whether once we build that system, we will actually have water.
As is well-known by now the way this will work is that we will built a diversion to the Sacramento that will allow us to collect some river water along with the City of Woodland. However, less well known perhaps is that we only collect that water during certain months, during certain years, and possibly when the river is of a certain level. That means that we might be building an expensive toy that may not yield much in the way of water during dry years. And so if climate change means more dry years, then we get less water.
People talk of course in terms of diversifying our water portfolio as though that were some kind of stock investment. The truth is, no one really knows what the future will bring, but a look at the current water wars may be suggestive.
The present is open to speculation as well. California’s water problems are always exacerbated during times of drought and we are indeed in times of drought. Everyone was hopeful that the drought may be ended this year due to El Nino, might want to think again. An article out yesterday, suggests that the fledling El Nino is losing steam.
According to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune yesterday, forecasters are concerned that the El Nino has stalled in terms of water temperature increase:
“If I were buying up water futures, I would not be reaching deep into my wallet at this point,” said Jan Null, a former forecaster for the National Weather Service who now runs a meteorological company.
California’s water managers are taking a similar stance: They’re not relying on El Niño to fill the state’s depleted reservoirs. The shrinking supply has forced many water providers — including virtually all of the ones in San Diego County — to implement voluntary or mandatory restrictions on usage.
“We’re planning for a dry 2010,” said Elissa Lynn, senior meteorologist for the California Department of Water Resources.
At present the water temperature is only about 1.4 degrees above normal and it needs to be over 3 degrees above normal to generate a strong change in precipitation patterns.
While I am not a meteorologist, I once aspired to be one. My observation of the weather patterns does not rely on computer models, but rather observation and I would guess we are in for a wetter than usual weather pattern this year. That is based on the odd weather we have had this summer and the propensity for low pressures systems to set up over the California coast which are highly unusual for the summer months. But that is shear speculation. The more important point is that if the drought persists, that will increase the pressure for changes to water policies and that will not help us.
Last week, Shawn Smallwood had an excellent guest piece on the Delta in the Vanguard. https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3000:whos-serious-about-delta-solutions&catid=82:land-useopen-space&Itemid=107
This is an issue that Davis residents ought to be paying much more attention to than they appear to be based on the number of comments and traffic on this particular article. We all know or should know that the Delta is of vital importance to this region for a vast number of reasons and it is from an ecological standpoint either dying or in very poor condition.
Many interests are vying for the water and resources of the Delta and recently we saw an alarming situation where there was a virtual water grab led actually by Northern California Liberals who aided an abetted Southern Californian and Central Valley interests in locking out those representatives who represent Delta Counties from the process.
We can argue policy all we want, but the idea that people like Lois Wolk, who has made Delta protection her seminal issue, would be precluded from sitting on a governance body that oversees and develops policies impacting the Delta is alarming. And while at this time, that legislation appears dead, there are continual threats that it may be revived in a special legislative session.
More importantly it demonstrates the utter powerlessness that we have toward controlling what happens with the Delta and through the Delta the water that flows in the Sacramento River that will eventually end up in your tap five years from now at a considerable cost to you. Or will it?
There are a number of scenarios that may play out particularly if the drought persists, particularly if the need for water increases, particularly if the drought is related to rising global temperatures, etc.
In a perfect world it makes sense to diversify our water portfolio in the face of uncertainty. The question is what happens if we diversify that portfolio, spend a ton of money, and end up with no return on our investment? California only has so much water and unfortunately much of Southern California where there is little to no water, has not engaged in manageable land use policies.
It is all linked together. Here’s what we know right now. We know that our water rates are going up. That may be an acceptable outcome if we had assurances of water and took steps to minimize the impact of those on fixed incomes. It appears after months and years of pressure that the council may have found a way to forestall the need for both a water supply project and a waste water treatment project. That will save a lot of money.
But beyond what we know is the threat we face and that is a huge threat of uncertainty. We simply do not know whether spending for a water supply project will bring us a more reliable water supply. And so from that standpoint, we are going to spend more money but introduce more and not less uncertainty into our future.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Honey, Get it while you can.
The joint water project with Woodland and Yolo County is fiscal madness. It is also environmentally not sustainable, as rather than requiring current residents to live within their environmental boundaries as set by our choice to live on the floor of this semi-arid valley, the project’s goals include attempting to draw water from the Sacramento River. We already know that the downstream Delta does not have enough flow, partially due to upstream communities taking too much water.
Like I have said over and over, PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. There is not a bat’s chance in heck that the project would withstand a full and public airing of the background facts and law.
Sue and Lamar, I watched you both the JPA meeting with Woodland CC, and neither one of you spoke up about the fiscal and environmental disaster this project is going to be. Both of you looked … asleep.
Nancy, let’s get together, form a group, and get it on the ballot.
Time for action.
One more thing: if any of you think that this water project is about sweeter tasting water in our kitchens, forget it. You are wrong.
This project is to put in place a program that is designed to ensure that over the long term, new large urban development projects in Yolo County have access to sufficient water. Several years ago, the state passed a law that requires all new larger projects to demonstrate that they have an available source of water. My understanding (Nancy and Shawn, correct me if I am wrong …) is that currently, any larger project would probably not be able to make that required legal showing. The projects would have to make that showing in the EIR pursuant to CEQA. I have not researched this, but I suspect that if the JPA water project is moving along, at some stage it might be enough to gain CEQA approval of “available water.”
The way to limit overgrowth in this area is stop the exterior developers from setting up new water supplies that are not environmentally sustainable. I don’t know of a more effective way to accomplish the goal. Sucking Sac River water is completely bogus. How could any of these proponents of that project look themselves in the mirror and pretend that they care a whit about the environment when they back obviously rotten projects like this water JPA?
The question of water priority is a good one, but it would be helpful to have a more precise definition and analysis of when we would be prohibited from getting river water. The wording that David uses could well be accurate, but it doesn’t tell us anything about the probabilities of when and how often we might not have access to the river water. Therefore, while the article raises an issues and probably gets some folks awfully worked up, it doesn’t really tell us much and isn’t that helpful.
Let’s call it what it is . . . and Mike is correct, this is a ballot issue!
Boondoggle (project)
From Wikipedia
The term boondoggle, in the sense of a project that wastes time and money, first appeared during the Great Depression in the 1930s, referring to the millions of jobs given to unemployed men and women to try to get the economy moving again, as part of the New Deal. It came into common usage after a 1935 New York Times headline claimed that over $3 million had been spent teaching the jobless how to make boon doggles.
It also refers to government or corporate projects involving large numbers of people and usually heavy expenditure; at some point, the key operators have realized that the project is never going to work, but are reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors. Generally there is an aspect of “going through the motions” – for example, continuing research and development – as long as funds are available to keep paying the researchers’ and executives’ salaries. The situation can be allowed to continue for what seems like unreasonably long periods, as senior management are often reluctant to admit that they allowed a failed project to go on for so long. In many cases, the actual device itself may eventually work, but not well enough to ever recoup its development costs.
A distinguishing aspect of a boondoggle, as opposed to a project that simply fails, is the eventual realization by its operators (long before it is shut down or completed) that it is not going to work as intended. This is not the same thing as fraud, a criminal enterprise in which the proponents know in advance that their idea has no merit.
While cost overruns are a common factor in declaring a project a boondoggle, that does not necessarily mean the project has no benefit. The project may have unseen benefits that overshadow its initial problems. For example, the cost of construction of the Sydney Opera House ballooned over 1400 percent, but the building has since become an icon for the city and many consider the benefits to overshadow the costs.
See if you can find the answer to your very valid questions at the following website: daviswoodlandwatersupply.org. This is where Bob Weir from Davis Public Works said all such questions would be answered. Does it satisfactorily answer the question “Will there by enough water from the Sacramento River in drought years, or in the dry summer time, when we need it the most, or will upstream users get to it first?”
The question that I have, one that continues to arise is whether once we build that system, we will actually have water.
Yes, most months of most years. Davis can buy water at other times.
That means that we might be building an expensive toy that may not yield much in the way of water during dry years. And so if climate change means more dry years, then we get less water.
“Expensive toy”? Is a well a toy? A reservoir? This is a water development project. Climate change models aren’t presently anywhere near predictive, except as a somewhat educated guess. But I don’t know of any model that says “we get less water.” The best guess is that we get more water on our coast range watershed, and that more of the water in the Sacramento River comes in spring from rainfall rather than summer from snowmelt. If that water can be stored, it is available later in the season. If farmers use it to irrigate, it is available as groundwater. If nothing is done, it flows out to the Bay.
The present is open to speculation as well. California’s water problems are always exacerbated during times of drought and we are indeed in times of drought. Everyone was hopeful that the drought may be ended this year due to El Nino, might want to think again. An article out yesterday, suggests that the fledgling El Nino is losing steam.
According to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune yesterday, forecasters are concerned that the El Nino has stalled….
You don’t have to rely on second-hand sources from the media for updates on El Niño (in fact, I strongly urge people to avoid media reports on anything related to weather and climate change). The NOAA site updates weekly, and a report is issued monthly. Go to NOAA.gov and search for El Niño or ENSO.
Here you go:
“A majority of the model forecasts for the Niño-3.4 SST index (Fig. 5) suggest El Niño will reach at least moderate strength during the Northern Hemisphere fall (3-month Niño-3.4 SST index of +1.0°C or greater). Many model forecasts even suggest a strong El Niño (3-month Niño-3.4 SST index in excess of +1.5°C) during the fall and winter, but current observations and trends indicate that El Niño will most likely peak at moderate strength. Therefore, current conditions, trends, and model forecasts favor the continued development of a weak-to-moderate strength El Niño into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2009, with the likelihood of at least a moderate strength El Niño during the winter 2009-10.”
While I am not a meteorologist, I once aspired to be one. My observation of the weather patterns does not rely on computer models, but rather observation and I would guess we are in for a wetter than usual weather pattern this year. That is based on the odd weather we have had this summer and the propensity for low pressures systems to set up over the California coast which are highly unusual for the summer months. But that is shear speculation.
You are right that you are just speculating. But again, NOAA issues long-term forecasts, based on measurable trends, also available on their site.
More importantly it demonstrates the utter powerlessness that we have toward controlling what happens with the Delta and through the Delta the water that flows in the Sacramento River that will eventually end up in your tap five years from now at a considerable cost to you. Or will it?
This is a misrepresentation, unless you believe that water is going to start flowing through the Delta and back upstream to Davis. All Delta uses are downstream of Davis. Unless water rights precedence is completely changed from the historic, hard-fought basis we presently have in California, what happens in the Delta is of little consequence to the Davis/Woodland water project. It is important from an environmental standpoint, and to the people of Stockton, Manteca, Lodi, Rio Vista, EBMUD, etc., but not really to us.
In a perfect world it makes sense to diversify our water portfolio in the face of uncertainty. The question is what happens if we diversify that portfolio, spend a ton of money, and end up with no return on our investment?
It makes sense to diversify our water portfolio in an imperfect world, too. 60 years ago, Davis and Yolo County had the opportunity to participate in the water project that built Monticello Dam and created Lake Berryessa. They declined. Lake Berryessa takes six years to fill, and six years to drain. It provides cities and farmers in Solano County with an abundant supply of clean surface water, and a hedge against drought years even such as we experienced in the late 1980’s. By contrast, Contra Costa County, right next door, has very little buffer against drought and has to implement severe water restrictions after only a couple of years of low rainfall.
The other important question is: what happens if we do not bring in a surface water supply, particularly with regard to our wastewater treatment.
California only has so much water and unfortunately much of Southern California where there is little to no water, has not engaged in manageable land use policies.
Obviously, if more reservoirs were built, existing ones were enlarged, groundwater banking was implemented, then California would have more water available. As a first step, the governor has proposed moving forward with two new reservoirs.
What do you mean by “manageable land use policies?” That is a pretty broad brush to apply to the entire region. Should they not build houses in Southern California? Southern California water districts have implemented aggressive water conservation policies.
It appears after months and years of pressure that the council may have found a way to forestall the need for both a water supply project and a waste water treatment project. That will save a lot of money.
Yes: if they build the water project, it will forestall the waste water treatment project!
And so from that standpoint, we are going to spend more money but introduce more and not less uncertainty into our future.
If we do nothing, there is also uncertainty.
At some point, ground water will be regulated and managed in California.
At some point, the subsidence already occurring in parts of Yolo County due to ground water pumping will become a problem.
Already, there is a problem that the quality of the ground water is such that the waste water is out of compliance with water quality regulations.
All of the wells in the area will have to be replaced within the next 20 – 30 years unless the water supply is diversified.
Water is bought and sold as a commodity, so it is likely that Davis will be able to purchase summer surface supplies if necessary. With a mix of wells and surface water, that could be managed prudently. But there is no way for Davis to do that if there is no infrastructure in place allowing the city to use surface water. That requires points for surface water to enter the system, large tanks for storage and treatment, and a modern distribution system.
Mike: “The way to limit overgrowth in this area is stop the exterior developers from setting up new water supplies that are not environmentally sustainable.”
The way to limit growth is Measure J.
Unfortunately, I suspect that there will be several people that oppose this project because they want to limit housing growth. As Don Shor notes, there are much more appropriate ways to limit growth, if that is your goal. As for water, we should make sure that Davis has plenty of good quality water at the best price we can get it. That is the best way to make sure the residents here can continue to enjoy Davis as their home; without adequate good quality water, Davis certainly will not have to worry about growth – cities with declining population generally do not enjoy improving standards of living.
Don,
Measure J is certainly a good fallback, but to me, year in and year out, stop the overbuidling of the growth infrastructure, and you will have fewer instances of needing to run a J campaign.
No on X was not fun, and the upcoming No on Covell Village IV is also not going to be fun. I know that politics is a blood sport in this town, but it’s not want I want to be doing on my nights and weekends. However, I will do it, as the need arises. There is no way, flat no way, that Halloween IV and Nightmare on Lewis Street are going to be approved in this town.
Stop their EIR’s use of large new supplies of water, and you stop their projects cold.
Who wants to put this water boondoggle on the ballot?
Sue, show some leadership and get off your relative penny-counting on the Parlin Wildhorse thing, and get going on getting the water JPA and related programs on the ballot. You are using huge amounts of volunteer resources on a very small project.
Don:
To me I see the water issue as a fiscal issue not a growth issue. It comes down to what would I rather people spend their money on water or something like education… and I’m going to pick education. There’s only one pot of money out there and we have to start recognizing that when we overspend on municipal services or city employee salaries, we are taking money from education and social services at the county level which I think are priorities.
I agree with Mike Harrington in part, i think running perpetual Measure J campaigns is eventually going to mean just as much growth as we would have had before. We will find a way to get the water if we want to grow, and we will cheat if we have to do in order to do that.
But I oppose the water project as a point of fiscal policy and prioritization.
Mike:
In terms of putting the issue on the ballot, until I see you walking precincts, getting signatures, and shelling out money again, I don’t care to hear you call for putting anything on the ballot.
“…more of the water in the Sacramento River comes in spring from rainfall rather than summer from snowmelt.”
I agree with Don that the current climate change suggests that we will have more rainfall and less snow. This means that our groundwater aquifers will be full while CA surface storage capacity which is now predicated on a slower snow melt rather than a cascade of rainwater will have to be increased. Joining in this increase demand for surface water coupled with a now less than optimal storage system will inexorably result in building more dams on CA rivers.
“Yes: if they build the water project, it will forestall the waste water treatment project!”
What’s wrong with building a new waste water treatment project that also incorporates recycling gray water for all new and as many existing development as is feasible. This coupled with water conservation would yield REAL local results as opposed to the WHR GHG reduction pitch which appears to yield little except Davis “bragging rights”.