Last week, the Davis Enterprise reported that a “River water deal is imminent.” The hope that the JPA has is that a deal could be reached as soon as this week. But beneath that headline, the actual story shows signs of potential trouble.
Bill Marble, a Woodland Councilmember and the Chair of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency – a JPA (Joint Powers Authority), said last week, “We appreciate everybody’s patience. We are continuing those negotiations in good faith with due diligence and in the best interest of our ratepayers at heart.”
According to several sources, the sticking point may be much more serious than the officials wish to publicly acknowledge. The key is to secure water rights from Conaway Ranch during the summer months when tapping into the Sacramento River is more restrictive and the city has a very low priority.
If a deal does not get done this week, January would be the earliest a deal could be struck – and really the deal may completely fall apart. If that happens, the city will once again have to look for enough water to supply the city’s supply during the months when it cannot freely tap into the Sacramento River.
The talks are occurring behind close doors – critics are concerned about the cost of the water project that would pipe water from the Sacramento River to Woodland and Davis. Some have suggested that this matter might be put on the ballot before all is done.
Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza, who sit on the JPA board, took their case to the Davis citizens this weekend with an Op-Ed in the Davis Enterprise.
They argued, “Unfortunately, our current systems – if left unimproved – will result in environmental impacts contrary to our ideals, as well as violate future anticipated water quality regulations. As public health and environmental stewards, we need a new, modern path for water supply and wastewater treatment services.”
They continued, “Our integrated system of groundwater aquifers for source water and wastewater treatment pond systems, built in 1972, have served us well. They also have kept our utility rates very low, but now we must move to modern systems that will provide us with safe, reliable and secure water into the future.”
At the same time, they cite community surveys that demonstrate “a strong dissatisfaction with our water’s hardness and its impact on taste and plumbing.”
Along those lines the councilmembers argue, “Public health standards for total dissolved solids, arsenic, nitrates, magnesium, chromium and selenium require, or threaten to require, increased treatment on the front end for drinking and the back end for discharge.”
They continue, “Even if quality weren’t an issue, our 65,000 residents threaten to exhaust available groundwater resources. Studies establish that our aquifer alone cannot support the long-term needs of Davis and UC Davis. Limits on our extraction have been imposed, and we are coming up against them.”
Fixing this on an ongoing basis will become more expensive and never-ending as the wells continue to age and water supply degrades.
Moreover, they contend, “a 2017 wastewater discharge permit requirement imposed by the state’s Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that we must act.”
“While we might wish that aggressive water conservation could solve our water supply problem, it will do nothing to help us meet the stringent wastewater discharge requirements under the 2017 permit. Amazingly, the water we are pumping from the ground today is hardly fit for discharge to our wetlands – even before it’s used!” they continue.
The centerpiece of the pro-project argument is this: “A new, reliable and high-quality supply is critical to reducing long-term costs for wastewater treatment, in that higher-quality water requires less wastewater treatment. In 2009, our City Council partnered with the City of Woodland and UC Davis to establish the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency to plan for a new water supply for both communities.”
However, there is a sticking point which is what is starting to generate the anxiety. Mr. Souza and Mr. Krovoza write, “Before proceeding, the new Woodland-Davis supply project must obtain Sacramento River water rights for both winter water and summer water. Not only is summer water scarce, but we use three times more water in summer than in winter.”
Furthermore they add, “Just as new winter and summer supplies are critical, they also must be enduring. Davis must embrace a still more conservation-minded water ethic to avoid future costs and remain a good steward of our environment. Aggressive water savings and creative new systems are fundamental to the sustainability of our water supply.”
Critics point to the costs of this project. Proponents such as Mr. Souza and Mr. Krovoza argue that they have already increased costs in advance of the project to help pay for it. Nevertheless people’s bills will increase.
They write, “In anticipation of increased capital costs, we have gradually increased wastewater rates for the past eight years. As a result, increases over the next 10 years are predicted to be 2 percent per year. Increases for the use of water will be steeper. Our current average residential bill of about $40 per month is approximately half the statewide average. Our average is projected to climb to $90 per month by 2020, when the statewide average is predicted to be $100 per month.”
“This news isn’t great, but without a new system we delay the inevitable and costs will increase,” they continue.
Critics view this more as a reason to increase water supply to promote and facilitate new development and growth to the city. Are there other unexplored alternatives at this time? It is hard to know.
Unanswered, really, in this is the overall impact of water extractions from the Sacramento River on the delta and how this will fit into the larger statewide issues about water and ecology.
There will be a public hearing on the water project and its impact on the delta before the State Water Resources Board on January 18, and perhaps answers will be more forthcoming at that point.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Doesn’t Tsakopolous own the Conway Ranch water rights? Do we want this Sacramento developer to be have the power to extort Davis building rights with his control of Davis’ water spigot?
[i]”According to several sources, the sticking point may be much more serious than the officials wish to publicly acknowledge. The key is to secure water rights from Conaway ranch during the summer months when tapping into the Sacramento River is more restrictive and the city has a very low priority.”[/i]
The Daily Democrat’s description of the Conaway situation was a bit different, though I don’t doubt your depiction of the problem. Here is what the Democrat reported: [quote] Agreements with the Conaway Ranch, necessary before the project can begin, are expected to address pipe easement on the ranch and the construction of a joint intake facility to replace the ranch’s existing, 100-year-old facility and draw water from the river. These will likely be accompanied by a separate water rights agreement allowing the agency to use the ranch’s “seniority” to draw more water in the summer months.[/quote]
[i]”Doesn’t Tsakopolous own the Conway Ranch water rights?”[/i]
The Bee reported in mid-October that Tsakopoulos was in the process of buying Conaway Ranch from the Conaway Preservation Group (CPG), itself largely a collection of Sacramento developers led by Steve Gidaro and John Reynen: [quote] Yolo County learned this week that the region’s most powerful developer, Angelo K. Tsakopoulos, is in the process of buying Conaway Ranch, a 17,300-acre swath of wetlands, rice fields, and wildlife habitat that many consider the county’s crown jewel.[/quote] The agreement which effectively ended Yolo County’s eminent domain action required that CPG, if it ever wanted to sell the ranch or parts of it, had to first offer to negotiate with Yolo County. I guess, therefore, that Yolo County (which is in terrible shape financially–have fun, Don Saylor) told CPG it was not a buyer. That said, I don’t know where the Tsakopoulos purchase stands. I am sure that if he had finalized the purchase, it would have been reported–but it has not. As such, I think the owners are still Gidaro, Reynen, et al.
[i]”Do we want this Sacramento developer to be have the power to extort Davis building rights with his control of Davis’ water spigot?”[/i]
Whether Steve Gidaro and John Reynen own Conaway or Angelo Tsakopoulos owns the ranch, it makes no difference to Davis or Woodland. That’s not to say the JPA will not have to work out an agreement with the ranch’s owner. I suspect that if a water deal ever made sense in the past, it still makes sense.
dmg: “According to several sources, the sticking point may be much more serious than the officials wish to publicly acknowledge. The key is to secure water rights from Conaway Ranch during the summer months when tapping into the Sacramento River is more restrictive and the city has a very low priority.”
What this says to me is that water from the Sacto River in the peak summer months when most needed will not necessarily be available. Previously Davis was to work out a deal with Conaway Ranch to discharge gray water, as a means of having to do a less expensive upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant. Only now are we discovering (according to the Daily Democrat) that a deal with Conaway Ranch is to pipe water from the Sacramento River through a middle man (the conduit of Conaway Ranch) that can really jack up the price of water whenever it suits – bc not enough Sacramento River water will be available during summer months otherwise.
In fact, with talk of more conservation needed, it is not clear even if the Conaway Ranch deal goes through will there be enough water in the summer months. I strongly suspect there won’t be, especially bc of the whole Delta issue…
Notice that Jo and Steve are now publicly admitting costs to consumers for sewer will eventually double (the 2% increase will not stop after 10 years, but continue on I believe), but the cost of water will be “steeper” (Jo and Steve are not mentioning what that means in dollar figures). If you think your City of Davis bill is high now, “you aint seen nothin’ yet”! My guess is that conservatively you are looking at possibly a $400 a month City bill, as if you were paying ground rent at a mobile home park. This will be above and beyond your mortgage, property taxes, sales taxes, vehicle tax, landscaping and lighting tax, federal and state taxes, etc, etc, etc.
And I have to wonder how much of this is in preparation for future residential and business growth? The current resident taxpayers of Davis are paying for this infrastructure, not developers. Previous charts showed that if we stayed the same size, our water supply would be fine out to the year 2025. Now we are being told that our water supply is just full of all sorts of bad things that are unacceptable, yet somehow were acceptable for years w/o a peep from elected officials despite numerous citizen complaints about the awful quality of our water. Even the CC was drinking bottled water for years rather than drinking city water. The hypocrisy is just stunning.
Bob Weir, former head of Public Works, was much more honest. The state has tightened water quality restrictions, bc federal law enacted back in 1972 requires it. We have to clean up the water to a greater degree than previously. But at first that meant an upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant. But old wells are starting to dry up, so a more reliable water supply is probably wise. But two massive capital projects to be financed at the same time? How are average citizens going to afford this. That is the big elephant in the room. If you are a senior on a fixed income, or a young family just making ends meet, these huge increases in water/sewer fees are going to be unsustainable. What then? What say you JPA? Davis City Council?
[quote]The key is to secure water rights from Conaway Ranch during the summer months when tapping into the Sacramento River is more restrictive and the city has a very low priority,– David Greenwadl[/quote]My understanding is that under term 91 which governs the water allocations during summer months when the river water is less abundant, all water rights holders are treated equally; the city does not have “low” priority.
The salinity requirements in the Valley may be loosened. I am looking into whether this might increase our ability to use more ground water during the summer months, or perhaps decrease the cost of some components of our wastewater treatment plant.
I remain concerned that our total water/wastewater/stormwater capitol improvements and related purchases could still top $400 million, which I still believe would push us way, way above the California average costs, even after knocking $100 million off of our wastewater treatment plant.
That would go against what I was told Sue, but you could be right. I was told the lower numbers had first priority and that we needed to buy from lower numbers to secure the water rights during those dry months.
The question is, if all rights are treated equally, why are we needing to buy addition water rights?
By that I mean all water rights issued after 1965. The fact that we waited until 2011 to procure water rights does not put us at a disadvantage relative to anyone else who received water rights after 1965.
I will get more detailed information over the week-end and post it here.
If we are using 3 times as much water in the summer it’s clear we use/waste too much on lawns. We live in the desert folks. Tome to stop pretending otherwise. This iis more important than environmental tokenism like firewood and zipcars
our water use is not susainable
[i]”We live in the desert folks. Time to stop pretending otherwise.”[/i]
Sorry to be a pedant, but we live [s]in the desert folks[/s] in the savanna ([url]http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm[/url]). And it happens to be a savanna with an unusually nice supply of water from the Sierra snowpack run-off ([url]http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/12/06/1682375/season-off-to-good-start-as-storms.html[/url]).
[i]”Our water use is not sustainable.”[/i]
Most of [b]our[/b] use of water goes to giant rice, tomato and alfalfa farms and the next most goes to water walnut, pear, almond and prune orchards. I’m fairly certain the percentage dedicated to the lawns planted in the yards of single family homes is quite small.
Rich: No Davis water comes from the Sierra snowpack. Very little groundwater locally goes to water any of the crops listed. The farmers have surface water supplies.
Understood, Don. I was speaking of the Sacramento Valley region. And, of course, in the Valley, the surface water which irrigates our crops principally is snow melt, though not all Sierra snow melt. The water which principally irrigates farms in the Davis area is from the Pacific Coast Range rains and snow. The point being that our limited rainfall in the Sacramento Valley savanna biome is not desert-like because the mountains on either side, though in volume mostly on the eastern side, provide a lot more water than a typical savanna would have.
By the way, I have long thought–and still mostly think–that growing rice, which is very water intensive* in the region roughly from Davis-W. Sacramento to Red Bluff is crazy, an irresponsible overuse of limited water. However, I do think the argument that without that intensive rice farming and flooding, we would no have the flyway for migratory birds that we now supports a rich variety of wildlife.
*Since the phase out of rice-straw burning, there is far more flooding of rice fields (post-harvest) than there was 20 years ago and more.
This article was just posted on the Davis Voice a few hours ago:
Historic Agreements Create Secure Water Future
by Bill Marble, Don Saylor & Art Pimentel
[url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/12/historic-agreements-create-secure-water-future/[/url]
Rifkin: “Most of our use of water goes to giant rice, tomato and alfalfa farms and the next most goes to water walnut, pear, almond and prune orchards. I’m fairly certain the percentage dedicated to the lawns planted in the yards of single family homes is quite small.”
When the issue of water shortages in the Sacramento area came up a few years ago, it was noted that 95% of the water is used by farmers, only 5% is residential use. If that is true, then if all residents stopped using water altogether (which is not realistic of course), the most we could save is a measly 5%. It is time for the farmers to have some accountability when it comes to water issues.
Elaine –
The water rights issue is very complicated, and it differs for those north of the delta pumping stations to those south of the delta. I’m going to grossly generalize for the sake of brevity and interest.
For the farmers north of the delta, they either have private wells on their land, or they are part of a water district which has contractual rights to the water they use, or which purchase the water at a market price. Heretofore, Davis has chosen to use wells for its drinking water, and now cannot meet the discharge standards set by the state, as controlled by the liberal environmentalist groups. Farmers with wells will soon face the same issue for discharge, so they are working very hard to minimize discharge and runoff. For the surface water, Davis can purchase the surface water from farmers (ie Conaway or some other farming group) and take the water away from the farmers.
How else would you like farmers to be accountable?
The water taken north of the delta is returned to the delta. Conaway’s sale of water rights are senior water rights. the cost of the water is expected to double over 25 years according to the Enterprise. Davis’ problems stem from the fact that we get our water from wells because Davis didn’t want to buy into Monticello Dam more than fifty years ago. Passing on this opportunity now will only make it more expensive in the future. The one thing where people on this blog are correct is the need to keep the financing costs as low as possible and not let Davis get taken to the cleaners by the bond underwriters like Harrisburg PA.
“The water taken north of the delta is returned to the delta.”
What percentage of the water is returned to the delta? I find it hard to believe that even half is.