We have been talking about the water project for as long as this site has been in existence. Last year, the city of Davis and Woodland formed a joint powers authority to form the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency.
On Thursday, they hired Eric Mische as the agency’s general manager and announced that they are on the brink of getting water rights.
The Davis Enterprise on Friday reported that the California Department of Public Health has found 29 pollutants Davis’ water, including arsenic, fertilizers, pesticides and mining leftovers. The national average was eight.
The article went on to report, “Most chemicals registered within acceptable ranges. However, 11 exceeded health guidelines set by federal and state agencies, nearly triple the national average. Concentrations of one -manganese – topped the legal limits established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in nine of 33 tests over the past six years.”
It continued, “Manganese is a naturally occurring metal and necessary to human health, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In high enough concentrations, however, it’s toxic, causing neurological symptoms similar to Parkinson’s disease: tremors, difficulty walking and facial muscle spasms.”
However, “While Davis water failed to meet EPA standards, manganese levels never jeopardized human health, according to the environmental nonprofit.”
They also reported that West Sacramento in tapping Sacramento River water only reported 11 pollutants. The Enterprise article claims that the River water will improve the quality of the water in Davis and Woodland and it will give the two cities ample water supplies over the next half-century.
However, that may not be accurate. A lot of that will depend on rainfall and precipitation in the future. Already, at best Davis would use existing water supplies to supplement river water during dry months. If precipitation decreases, as some models suggest, the supply of River water may be insufficient.
Moreover, as we have seen with Delta discussions, Northern California may not have as much control over its water supply as it might hope.
Nevertheless, the city has rushed headlong into the project after planning and discussing water for more than 20 years, last summer the city of Davis and Woodland finally formed a joint power agreement and moved the plan into fruition over the objection of minority members of council.
Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza is also Vice Chair of the agency. He told the Enterprise, “We’ve spent a lot of time and money. It’s taken a long time for the locals ‘to stick a straw into the river.'”
Right now, officials are looking to gain approval for construction by 2012 after securing water rights later this year. Under the present timeline, the authority would commence construction in 2013 and hope to complete it by 2016 at which point the project would go online.
As mentioned earlier, the current projections have Davis paying $155 million, Woodland would pay $162 million UC Davis would pay the remaining $12.1 million as they consume far less water than the two cities. However, there might be a snag in that point due the state’s fiscal situation. UC Davis has until next year to sign off on the agreement otherwise the cities would each need to pay UC Davis’ share.
It seems likely that costs will increase with time and it also seems likely that ratepayers in Davis will have to pay far more than double their current costs by the time this is over. The city has still failed to address how to mitigate the impact on low income and fix income residence. Moreover the city is contemplating a new wastewater treatment plant, although it is possible with good planning and the use of river water that they can put that part off until we have paid off the infrastructure.
Bottom line here is that the cost of water is going to go way up for Davis residents and we do not really know if we are going to gain from this project as they claim we will.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How is it that the water quality pamphlets that we receive in the mail from the City of Davis seem to indicate that everything in our water is within acceptable limits? The DE article seems to suggest otherwise. Is the City of Davis covering this up or is this apples and oranges?
Enterprise is obviously “shilling” for this project here and this artilce needs to be taken with ‘a grain of salt”. Was this report of Davis water quality a one-time thing or averaged over an entire year? How are “pollutants” defined? This water project is conceived and being pushed by developers who,by law, must now demonstrate adequate water resources to get their massive peripheral residential development projects approved. This plan also attempts to extort Davis voters into approving massive residential development to avoid the crippling increase in local taxes that this project will generate unless the residential population (tax base) in dramatically increased
I used to my indoor plants with Davis tap-water –they did not do well. Several horticulturalists told me not to give Davis tap-water to certain plants. After that I stopped drinking tap-water. I realize this is completely unscientific and most outdoor plants in Davis are on drip systems, but it still gave me pause. Most environmentalists say that we should be drinking tap water rather than adding the expense and environmental impact of purchasing water, but I don’t trust Davis tap-water. And frankly, it tastes awful. Our ability to taste evolved at least in part to help us avoid toxins. What does it mean when the water is tastes awful ? On the other hand, I don’t know if the new plant will help and I am concerned that a new plant will encourage more development in Davis. Can any water experts shed some light here?
“How is it that the water quality pamphlets that we receive in the mail from the City of Davis seem to indicate that everything in our water is within acceptable limits?”
“Several horticulturalists told me not to give Davis tap-water to certain plants.”
Groundwater in contact with rocks absorbs the minerals in the rocks. Our drinking water is groundwater that meets “drinking water standards” with almost no treatment. The drinking water standards are based on toxicity to mammals, not plants, or fish. There are also standards for taste. Our water meets those standards; many of us still don’t like the flavor.
“Several horticulturalists told me not to give Davis tap-water to certain plants.”
Plants which prefer a low pH don’t grow well in Davis. That includes azaleas, camellias, and gardenias. Some plants are sensitive to high salt content, so they also don’t do well here: rhododendrons and dogwoods, for example. For some, the pH is undesirable and our harsh environment is a problem: Japanese maples can be grown here, but require special fertilizing when young and careful placement. All of these are plants that are readily grown in Sacramento. The difference is the water quality. It makes little difference to many common landscape ornamentals and common vegetables and fruit trees. Some, such as citrus, benefit from extra fertilizer due to the high pH making trace elements less available. Many common landscape plants show chronic late-season iron deficiency due to the high pH.
davisite: “This water project is conceived and being pushed by developers.” You don’t have the slightest evidence for this canard. I have been talking with city water officials about this project since the mid-1980s.
“This plan also attempts to extort Davis voters into approving massive residential development.” You don’t have the slightest evidence for this, either.
If the water project doesn’t go through, Davis will have to substantially upgrade the sewer system to remove the salts and other materials that are naturally occurring in our water. Davis ground water will not meet effluent standards. Surface water from the Sacramento river has far fewer salts in it. Even if the city does not rely on it 100% due to seasonal shortages during low-rainfall years, it is likely that this project will obviate the need for a massive and costly upgrade to the sewer system. The project has been studied by many experts, including outside researchers brought in by Sue Greenwald. The answer at every stage has been to proceed with the water project.
The city council can deal with the cost issue by modifying the tiered rate structure based on usage so that it is more progressive. Higher water users pay more than lower water users already. I don’t believe they can make an income-based or senior rate, but the simple answer to the rate increase issue is to weight it toward the higher users.
Every city in California wants to stick a straw into that mud hole called the Sacramento River for their water needs. If we let our local governments get away with building this water system the price of our water per gallon will cost as much as gasoline.
As I see it from inside my fish bowl, we need to be spending our millions of tax dollars on watersheds and ways of storing water before it flows into the Sacramento River. Why not build small reservoirs to contain the runoff, which in turn would help us with our flooding problems and water needs? Since we are depleting our water table more and more every year, why not start drilling injection wells and start injecting the water runoff into the water table to create an aquifer storage and recovery system? We should be using the Yolo Bypass as a reservoir to not only help solve our flooding problems but it could also serve as a water reserve for cities down stream.
“However, that may not be accurate. A lot of that will depend on rainfall and precipitation in the future. Already, at best Davis would use existing water supplies to supplement river water during dry months. If precipitation decreases, as some models suggest, the supply of River water may be insufficient. “
I guess you would rather go with desalinization like Monterey and Santa Cruz.
I would have rather have seen us fight for a waiver to continue to use current water.
As I was reading the Enterprise article, I was struck by the following two paragraphs, one directly after the other:
“West Sacramento taps the Sacramento River and, over about 300 tests, the city’s water contained 11 pollutants, including lead, mercury and chloroform. Six chemicals exceeded state and federal guidelines. One of the six tests for manganese topped the U.S. EPA’s legal limit.
Getting the Sacramento River water through the agency’s proposed project will improve the quality of Davis and Woodland watger, helping both cities easily reach future state standards…”
Am I missing something here – the two statements seem to absolutely contradict each other. It sounds as if we are trading one source of polluted water system for another…
don shor: “davisite: “This water project is conceived and being pushed by developers.” You don’t have the slightest evidence for this canard. I have been talking with city water officials about this project since the mid-1980s.
“This plan also attempts to extort Davis voters into approving massive residential development.” You don’t have the slightest evidence for this, either.”
Actually there is some evidence of this water project being developer driven. In a staff report, there is a chart, that shows if the city remained at its current size, the need for more water would remain static until the year 2027. Please refer to my June 18, 2009 article on the Davis Vanguard “Word to the Wise: Water, Water Everywhere”.
don shor: “If the water project doesn’t go through, Davis will have to substantially upgrade the sewer system to remove the salts and other materials that are naturally occurring in our water. Davis ground water will not meet effluent standards. Surface water from the Sacramento river has far fewer salts in it. Even if the city does not rely on it 100% due to seasonal shortages during low-rainfall years, it is likely that this project will obviate the need for a massive and costly upgrade to the sewer system. The project has been studied by many experts, including outside researchers brought in by Sue Greenwald. The answer at every stage has been to proceed with the water project.”
I agree that this is what the upshot of all the discussions were. But a lot of questions still go unanswered. For instance, will we really have access to Sacramento River water when we need it the most – summertime? And is the Sacramento Water really any cleaner than what we already have now. On the other hand, will our wells produce sufficient water for future needs, or are the future needs being ginned up to accommodate maximum growth? Will the whole state water rights issue/peripheral canal overtake our own freight train of instituting this water project? Southern CA interests seem to be winning the day as far as siphoning off Northern CA water. I am not clear if one has anything to do with the other. Anyone know for sure?
“It sounds as if we are trading one source of polluted water system for another…”
“is the Sacramento Water really any cleaner than what we already have now.”
It’s pretty clear. Go back and reread the article.
DAVIS WELL WATER
During more than 14,000 tests of Davis’ water, the California Department of Public Health found 29 pollutants – including arsenic, fertilizers, pesticides and mining leftovers – according to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit with an office in Sacramento. The national average was eight.
Most chemicals registered within acceptable ranges. However, 11 exceeded health guidelines set by federal and state agencies, nearly triple the national average. Concentrations of one -manganese – topped the legal limits established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in nine of 33 tests over the past six years.
WEST SACRAMENTO RIVER WATER
West Sacramento taps the Sacramento River and, over about 300 tests, the city’s water contained 11 pollutants, including lead, mercury and chloroform. Six chemicals exceeded state and federal guidelines. One of the six tests for manganese topped the U.S. EPA’s legal limit.
——
Well vs River
Pollutants – 29 vs 11
Pollutants over the limits – 11 vs 6
Bad Mn tests – 9/33 vs 1/6
The toxicity of our effluent is already unacceptable. The cost to solve the problem will be much higher if river water is not part off the aggregate solution.
This is a fiscal, environmental, and public health issue.
” If precipitation decreases, as some models suggest, the supply of River water may be insufficient.”
Which models suggest that total precipitation (rainfall and/or snow) will be reduced on the Sacramento River watershed?
“I would have rather have seen us fight for a waiver to continue to use current water.”
You would prefer that Davis seek to violate clean water rules?
For instance, will we really have access to Sacramento River water when we need it the most – summertime?
Most years. Sometimes we would have to buy water rights, and the wells that remain in commission can provide the difference.
And is the Sacramento Water really any cleaner than what we already have now.
Absolutely, unequivocally, without question: yes.
On the other hand, will our wells produce sufficient water for future needs, or are the future needs being ginned up to accommodate maximum growth?
Current wells cover the next 15 years or so. Wells have a lifespan of 30 – 40 years. A number will need to be replaced if this project doesn’t go through.
Growth is controlled by the voters in Davis. It is irrelevant as to whether this project would increase the ability of developers to build on the periphery. So even if you believe this is developer-driven, it doesn’t matter. The voters have the final power over when and where Davis grows, and by how much.
Will the whole state water rights issue/peripheral canal overtake our own freight train of instituting this water project? Southern CA interests seem to be winning the day as far as siphoning off Northern CA water.
Davis would be an upstream use. If that particular water right is upended, it would be a massive change in California water law. I’m not saying that is impossible, but we would certainly not be the only interested party should there be an attempt to reassign the priority of water use to downstream users.
For instance, will we really have access to Sacramento River water when we need it the most – summertime? On the other hand, will our wells produce sufficient water for future needs, or are the future needs being ginned up to accommodate maximum growth?
It is better to have multiple water sources available (surface and ground) vs. just groundwater. If one source fails us for whatever reason, we have the option of using the other. Better to plan and execute this now rather than wait for a future disaster to force us into a more expensive remedy. The latter strategy is the way our state legislature runs things these days.
Above Don Shor states: “even if you believe this is developer-driven, it doesn’t matter. The voters have the final power over when and where Davis grows, and by how much.” I would just like to point out that we may have Measure J renewed, yet each vote on a development project has required a huge commitment by “we, the people” to analyze, get the straight facts to the voters, and fund a campaign with very limited resources, while corporate developers have had unlimited funds to use every means to turn the vote in their favor. In this scenario, voters having the final power depends on many factors not just the power to vote, but the opportunity to have good and accurate information before them on which to base their vote.
To remain solely dependent on groundwater for our water supply is short-sighted. Having multiple water supplies increases water supply reliability, and has the nice side benefit of making wastewater compliance much easier. That project (wastewater treatment upgrade) is hugely expensive and largely required because the water supply is from groundwater.
Plus, no water supply is 100% reliable every year. So if there is a multi-year drought and surface water supplies aren’t available as some of the comments speculate, during those times we’d use our groundwater supplies. These supplies are likely to be ample since they will have been pumped much less than if a surface water supply didn’t exist.
Regarding whether the water is clean or not, any surface water needs to be treated before it is used. The applicable law is the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The proposed surface water treatment plant will treat the surface water from the Sacramento River to comply with all CDPH water quality requirements. There are many many plants in California that do the same thing everyday, and they are very reliable.
There are still many unanswered questions that no amount of advocate “pressure” can dissipate. What is this Environmental Working Group? who sits on its board and where does it get its funding? Comparing numbers as to “pollutants” does not address the relative human toxicity. I am unmoved by Don’s strident arguments(so unlike his usual blogging here on the Vanguard). Arguing that there is no evidence that increasing Davis’ water supply would not be very favorable to developer’s interests and that the voters’ acceptance of periperal development (with its accompanying taxpayer base) would not be enhanced as the current population’s tax burden dramatically increases to pay for the water project leaves me unmoved as the OBVIOUS does not require “documentation”.
Environmental Working Group: [url]http://www.ewg.org/about/board[/url]
Norm: “Well vs River
Pollutants – 29 vs 11
Pollutants over the limits – 11 vs 6
Bad Mn tests – 9/33 vs 1/6
Note: River water contains lead, mercury and chloroform – different pollutants. Nothing has been said about antibiotics and some other pollutants that also may occur in river water that haven’t been tested for. Furthermore, the tests for manganese are worse in the river water – 1 in 3.5 tests for well water versus 1 in 6 tests for river water. Again, it almost sounds as if we are trading one polluted resource ofr another polluted resource.
Don Shor: “Sometimes we would have to buy water rights, and the wells that remain in commission can provide the difference.”
If the water rights are even available. Which is exactly my point. If we expend huge dollars for a river water project, then find we cannot purchase the water we need in the summer because others have superior water rights, then what good did the river water project do us from a practical point of view? This is a point that I don’t think there have been adequate answers to in my mind. This issue has been pretty much sloughed off to the side…
don shor: “Current wells cover the next 15 years or so. Wells have a lifespan of 30 – 40 years. A number will need to be replaced if this project doesn’t go through.
Growth is controlled by the voters in Davis. It is irrelevant as to whether this project would increase the ability of developers to build on the periphery. So even if you believe this is developer-driven, it doesn’t matter. The voters have the final power over when and where Davis grows, and by how much.”
Peripheral residential housing growth is controlled in Davis through Measure R only to the extent citizens are engaged and willing to fight back. Furthermore, developers are never made to pay their fair share of the costs of the extra water that will be needed. The question in my mind is whether the dog is wagging the tail or the tail is wagging the dog. I’m not totally convinced that the push for the surface water project is not because there is a push to accommodate a 1% growth rate. That 1% growth rate was supposed to be a “cap” or maximum amount allowable, but instead is being used rather as a “target” when estimating how much water will be needed. In short, the 1% growth “cap” is being used to justify the need for huge amounts of water in the future – see the chart in my Vanguard article Word to the Wise: Water, Water Everywhere. If the city were to remain the same size, there would be no need for more water until the year 2027.
I’m not necessarily advocating “no growth” here, just “smart growth”, where water issues are decided on their own merit, not to accommodate developers who will not pay their fair share of the costs more water will incur because of new housing development.
don shor: “Davis would be an upstream use. If that particular water right is upended, it would be a massive change in California water law. I’m not saying that is impossible, but we would certainly not be the only interested party should there be an attempt to reassign the priority of water use to downstream users.”
If you have been following the legal battles over the “water wars” in CA, it is looking more and more like there is a concerted push for water from Northern CA to be siphoned off to Southern CA “for the good of the state”. So as much as you claim upsteam use will be superior to those riparian owners downstream, unfortunately the concept of “eminent domain” may self-servingly overtake the “antiquated” theory of riparian water rights. Currently the powerful CA legislator Darryl Steinberg is jockeying for position to align himself with Southern CA interests (probably in a future bid to run for governor) to siphon off Northern CA water to Southern CA.
wdf1: “It is better to have multiple water sources available (surface and ground) vs. just groundwater. If one source fails us for whatever reason, we have the option of using the other. Better to plan and execute this now rather than wait for a future disaster to force us into a more expensive remedy. The latter strategy is the way our state legislature runs things these days.”
This logic sounds good, but it still leaves open the question will the Sac River water be there when we most need it? Or will it be siphoned off by users with higher priority than we have? Those ahead of our city in line, or Southern CA bc it has been arbitrarily determined for political reasons their need is greater than ours.
To all: I am not sure where I come down on the Sac River water project – I still have a lot of questions I need answered to be comfortable in my mind that we are embarking on the best course of action…
This logic sounds good, but it still leaves open the question will the Sac River water be there when we most need it? Or will it be siphoned off by users with higher priority than we have?
You’re relying on the fact that the future is never certain. You can use that logic to talk yourself out of anything. With the past as a guide, I have driven over the Sacramento River every working day for almost 15 years, and whenever I look, I see water there.
Perhaps this line of argument would be more effective if you can find an equivalent city in the Northern Central Valley for which Sacramento River water hasn’t been available when most needed.
In regard to growth, it is my understanding that current state law requires that developers show that that they can supply – meet the needs of their development – with 20 years of water…but…it IS the city, in approving the development and thus the extension of the infrastructure and hookups, is actually guaranteeing that there will be the 20 years worth of water….correct me please, if I am not correct. Of course, the developer could tap into and develop other sources, esp. underground well water, or have surface water rights and be able to build a stand-alone project and not hook into the existing public, municipal drinking water system. There would still be the waster water treatment needs.