No Stopping Water Project Now?

At the first meeting, William Marble, the Woodland City Councilmember was elected chair and Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza was elected Vice Chair.  The other members are Woodland City Councilmember Martie Dote and Davis Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor.  Art Pimentel and Lamar Heystek were named alternates.

UC Davis participates with the authority as a non-voting participating agency.  The University remains an interested project participant as the agreement contemplates that after formation of the Authority, the Authority and University would enter into a water supply agreement governing the university’s rights and obligations relating to the project.  However at this time, the university is not a party to the agreement.

The real question at this stage is whether this makes a water supply project a done deal.  It appears that the JPA gives this body the authority to construct and operate the water supply project.

Currently groundwater serves as the sole supply of water for the cities as well as UC Davis.  The surface water supply would presumably allow the partners to have an additional source for water, but as anyone who has read this space before knows, there are a number of drawbacks to the project.

First and foremost is the cost of the project which is expected to exceed a hundred million and could approach a quarter of a billion if not higher.  These costs have prompted critics to urge the city to look into other possible solutions especially since the city of Davis is also looking into a rather expensive wastewater treatment plant.  The combined costs of these projects could exceed half a billion and this would force ratepayers to have dramatically increased water bills.

However, the commissioners of the project argue that using surface water will provide Davis and Woodland with a better and more reliable supply of water.

“Surface water does not contain the high mineral and nitrate levels found in the local groundwater supplies of Davis, Woodland and UC Davis. Surface water also offers a supply with better taste, fewer minerals and less required treatment after use than wastewater.”

A commissioned third-party study by Schroeder and Tchobanoglous showed Davis a possible different direction.  One of the big issues with the current water supply is that it has high quantities of selenium.  With new and more stringent wastewater discharge requirements issued by the State, the city will be required to improve the quality of the water it discharges.

Schroeder and Tchobanoglous however believe they have found a way to prevent the need for duel projects.  They made six recommendations last February.  First,  that the city proceed with the development of the water supply project.  Second,  that the city modify existing infrastructure to reduce selenium concentration, including the drilling of new deep-aquifer wells and converting wells with high selenium for landscape irrigation. 

Third, that the city move ahead with an aggressive water conservation program that focuses on outdoor uses including xeriscaping of homes and commercial properties, inspection and repair of existing irrigation systems, improved management of park watering, and changes in public area plantings.

Fourth, that the city make interim modifications to the wastewater treatment system to enhance performance to meet current discharge requirements until the final dispersal alternative is selected.  These will make it possible to defer the construction of the wastewater treatment plant and allow costs to be spread over a longer time period.  Along the same lines, they recommend a comprehensive analysis of alternatives such as Conway Ranch which could allow the continued use of the current wastewater treatment facility for some time thereby decreasing the financial impact on the city.  Finally, once they begin construction on the water supply plant, they can reconsider the need for a new wastewater treatment plant.

While the study by Schroeder and Tchobanoglous changed the thinking somewhat, problems remain with the water supply project above and beyond only cost.

There is considerable question of reliability of supply.  As Schroeder and Tchobanoglous point out, “even with such supplies, blending of surface and groundwater may be necessary during dry periods.”

In fact, it may be worse than that.  During the rainy season, the Sacramento River figures to have a plentiful and reliable supply of water.  However, during the dry months, the city will be forced to use more and more groundwater to compensate.  Some studies have suggested that during dry years, water from the river may not be reliable at all.

The question then becomes what happens to our precipitation pattern under climate change models.  Many suggest more precipitation but less snowfall.  Less snowfall however may mean less runoff into the river during the summer from snow melt.  There are also models that show a drier cycle under climate change.  And many models suggest that we will face a greater amount of variability meaning there will be wet years and dry years.  If we end up with considerably less rainfall we will have built a water supply project that does not supply us with much water.

However, there is a greater danger in my view from the political process.  We see this playing out with the threat of a peripheral canal where Delta leadership and representation is being denied even a seat at the table and the political power has shifted to the drier southern part of the state.  Given continued population growth and lesser water available through current means to the south, the possibility exists that holding our place in line will not yield us with the benefit that we think.

Cost is still the biggest factor here, people on fixed incomes even with a more modest doubling of water rates could be priced out of their homes.  The city has not taken sufficient contingencies to prevent this harm.  We saw in the spring what just a modest increase in water rates brought in terms of public outcry.  However, the outcry here will not come for a number of years as the water rates will not really begin to increase until 2014, long after most of the current council is no longer seated.

I began this discussion with a question as to whether the process could be stopped.  It appears there are two possible means to stop the project at this point.  First, by changing the composition on the council.  Second, by placing a measure on the ballot to give the voters the right to decide. The former is problematic, the latter is costly and equally problematic as it would require a public education program that would inform the community and manufacture enough dissent and outrage to get the public’s attention.

For now the project goes forward, and the public ought to pay attention to the next meeting as the first one was not heavily noticed.

—David M. Greenwald reporting