The Davis Enterprise is reporting today that according to a state official, the City of Davis “could push back deadlines to clean up its water by as much as a decade and hold off tripling residents’ water bills,” something that the Vanguard has been suggesting for quite some time.
The Enterprise, citing Ken Landau from the State Water Regional Control Board, reports that a new law would allow the city to “apply for further extension on requirements to clean up the water they discharge into the environment.”
Right now the city, through a joint powers agreement, is scheduled to pay about $160 of a $325 million project that would divert water from the Sacramento River to the City of Davis where it would, at the very least, bolster the current reliance on medium and deep level aquifers.
However, the down side of that is that the public is just now learning that their water rates will be tripled in the next five years to pay for the project.
The Vanguard has repeatedly argued that those costs will price seniors and other low-income residents out of their homes. There is also the real possibility that landlords are likely to increase tenant’s rents. As a result of these and other complaints, the city is looking into a low-income subsidy program.
However, there remains concern that the cost of the water project could make it more difficult for the city and school district to pass additional revenue measures in the future, or renew current ones.
Already, the school district is planning to renew Measures Q and W next March. The city faces an expiring Parks Parcel Tax, which provides over a million for the financing of the city’s parks, that might otherwise come from general fund monies and would divert resources from public safety and potentially roads.
The city staff has pushed the water project forward, based on the expressed need to get to the front of the line, along with the threat of fines should the city fall out of compliance.
According to the Davis Enterprise article, these are serious threats.
The Enterprise reports, “The state will nail Davis with stiff fines if the city doesn’t meet the upcoming requirements or apply for and secure an extension, he added. The state hasn’t set the benchmarks just yet, but salt levels in both Davis and Woodland water are ‘far above anything we would come up with.’ “
They add, “With no limits in place, it’s hard to say how much the state would ding Davis. It’s safe to say it would total in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
“Bottom line: It will add up to a whole lot of money over time,” Mr. Landau told the Enterprise.
However, if the city could apply for an extension it would allow for three critical things. First, it would allow the city to build up a fund to pay for the $160 million project. Second, it would allow the city to implement a massive conservation program which might enable the city to either reduce the scope of this project or handle the salt outflow in other ways.
Finally, it would take the crunch away from trying to finance the project during times of economic hardship.
Mr. Landau also clarifies the impact of the Tracy decision on Davis. In the City of Tracy case, the judge ordered the state to analyze the economic impact of Tracy’s water requirements.
However, according to Mr. Landau, as reported by the Davis Enterprise, “It’s not just a matter of ‘is it going to cost the City of Tracy a lot of money?’ “
“That doesn’t mean because it costs a lot you don’t have to make people do it,” he added. “It means you need to consider the cost as part of the whole benefit and detriment to the regulation.”
Instead, the big difference is that because Davis is north of the delta, Davis and Woodland face much higher standards, since what comes out of Davis impacts those downstream.
It is becoming unclear where Councilmember Sue Greenwald, really at this point the lone voice of dissent on the water issue, stands on this.
According to Jonathan Edwards’ article in the Enterprise, Councilmember Greenwald told residents last week that the project is a good one but will hit residents hard in the pocketbook, especially those on fixed incomes.
The Enterprise reports that Sue Greenwald “suggested holding off on the project until the economy turns around and locals are more able to foot the bill.
“We have to be honest with people that it is an option not to do it,” she said as reported by the Enterprise, adding that she was bothered with the “scare tactics” other politicians and officials were using to make it seem as if there’s no choice.
However, Councilmember Greenwald herself disputes that is her position.
In a comment, she vehemently denied that she was suggesting a postponement.
Instead she said, ” “We should cut costs at every opportunity; it would be unwise to overbuild this project given the extraordinary burden on the ratepayer. It is important that the Davis and the Woodland shares be independently financed; the Davis ratepayer should not have to shoulder any risks that might accrue to Woodland.”
She continued, “Mostly, I wanted to make the point that if the financing doesn’t work out, or if costs can’t be controlled, we have options. We are likely to have more negotiating room with the Water Resources Control Board in the future regarding salinity. We could dig more deep wells (which is far less expensive), we could intensify progressive rates and other conservation efforts, use the intermediate aquifer for landscape needs, etc.
“Again, we have risks if we proceed and risks if we delay. I am hoping that we stay flexible and that we assess the risks and benefits on a rational basis.”
The bottom line is that with a strong 4-1, perhaps even 5-0, majority in favor of going forward with the project at this point, the residents have two avenues for recourse. First, they could file a Prop 218 protest, which could block the rate hikes and force Davis to reconsider its participation in the plan.
This is a difficult and cumbersome task, as it requires a majority of property owners to write a protest to the city – not going to happen. The other option is more feasible, which would require a petition gathering and then getting the rate increase on the ballot, where a majority of voters, including tenants, could stop the rate hike.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
If an extension were to be obtained, is it possible in some way, to compel the establishment of a fund to finance the project in the future?
If so, I would see this as a viable approach perhaps allowing for more gradual rate increases. However without such a guarantee, is there anything to stop this, or a future council to effectively back out by diverting the funds to other “urgent” projects?
I don’t know about compelling, but that would be the approach I favor.
“However without such a guarantee, is there anything to stop this, or a future council to effectively back out by diverting the funds to other “urgent” projects? “
Yeah there is a way because water is not general fund, it would be the enterprise fund and fees assessed could only be used for such purposes.
I, for one, would work to gather signatures for a petition. The Council may very well reverse its decision to go forward now when this official information is disseminated. The “jig” is up with regard to the scare tactics propagated by the Council Majority. We saw the same tactics in the Measure X Covell Village campaign and I would guess that the same developer special interests are involved in “lobbying” for this project as it would allow them to meet the law requirements for identifying needed water for development. The pressure for it being done NOW would have the Davis voters pay for this additional water resource rather than developers contributing to the cost as a MAJOR impact fee.
“rather than developers contributing to the cost as a MAJOR impact fee.”
In addition to impact fees, how about something like having developers who have control of urban reserve peripheral property annually contributing to the fund that will pay for bringing additional water resources to Davis which are required to develop their properties.
[quote]The Enterprise, citing Ken Landau from the State Water Regional Control Board, reports that a new law would allow the city to “apply for further extension on requirements to clean up the water they discharge into the environment.”[/quote]
More importantly, what “new law” is Ken Landau referring to? Can we get a cite/link to this “new law” so we can see what it really says? Because the words that follow from him do not sound particularly positive in terms of Davis putting off this project… for instance the following statement:
[quote]The Enterprise reports, “The state will nail Davis with stiff fines if the city doesn’t meet the upcoming requirements or apply for and secure an extension, he added. The state hasn’t set the benchmarks just yet, but salt levels in both Davis and Woodland water are ‘far above anything we would come up with.’ “
They add, “With no limits in place, it’s hard to say how much the state would ding Davis. It’s safe to say it would total in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.”[/quote]
[quote]In addition to impact fees, how about something like having developers who have control of urban reserve peripheral property annually contributing to the fund that will pay for bringing additional water resources to Davis which are required to develop their properties.[/quote]
Now this is an interesting idea…
As I have said before, the state is in the process of revamping the salinity (TDS) requirements. I am under the impression that that there are two processes going on — one to review the approach to salinity in the Delta, and another to give relief to current permit holders. It looks as if we are likely to have decades to comply with current standards, even if the standards themselves are not ultimately relaxed.
I would also like to point out that our deep water aquifer is, I believe, compliant even with the current extraordinarily stringent standards. That means that to meet the current, stringent standards which are likely to be modified, we would have decades to drill deep water aquifer wells. The deep water aquifer wells only cost about $3 million apiece compared with $160 million to $180 million.
Also, the fines given to Vacaville come to 50 cents a year per unit. Even the selenium fines given to Woodland come to only $7.50 per unit per year (their selenium issues are much worse than ours).
Any regulator is going to have to say that we must obey current laws or we will be fined. That is their job. Until those regulations are changed, they will have to say that.
So, again, the issue is one of supply of water in the deep water aquifer, and its recharge rate. (And a preference for softer water for those who can afford it). How long the deep aquifer water last with stringent conservation measures is an unknown. We could have done far better studies of the aquifer, but long ago the city chose not to do so.
Our water rights are secure for at least 40 years. It would certainly be a good idea to have the infrastructure in place to import surface water, in case we start running out of ground water. The issue, of course, is cost.
[quote]The Enterprise reports that Sue Greenwald “suggested holding off on the project until the economy turns around and locals are more able to foot the bill.[/quote]Yes indeed, the Enterprise misrepresented my position.
David is right. Here is an excerpt from my comments. As you can see, I am not suggesting postponing the project. Some issues don’t have simple answers. I am suggesting keeping a close eye on the costs versus benefits.
Here is the link to my article (I did not write the headline): http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/get-real-on-water-risksbenefits/
[quote]“We should cut costs at every opportunity; it would be unwise to overbuild this project given the extraordinary burden on the ratepayer. It is important that the Davis and the Woodland shares be independently financed; the Davis ratepayer should not have to shoulder any risks that might accrue to Woodland.
Mostly, I wanted to make the point that if the financing doesn’t work out, or if costs can’t be controlled, we have options. We are likely to have more negotiating room with the Water Resources Control Board in the future regarding salinity. We could dig more deep wells (which is far less expensive), we could intensify progressive rates and other conservation efforts, use the intermediate aquifer for landscape needs, etc.
Again, we have risks if we proceed and risks if we delay. I am hoping that we stay flexible and that we assess the risks and benefits on a rational basis.”—excerpt from article by Sue Greenwald http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/get-real-on-water-risksbenefits/”
[/quote]
I think that giving the state the finger is an appropriate gesture here.
That being said, on the outside chance that we might have a water emergency, it makes sense to secure the right-of-way to build such a pipeline if were ever needed in the future and make sure that no one builds houses or other structures on top of where the pipeline might be needed.
“rather than developers contributing to the cost as a MAJOR impact fee.”
“In addition to impact fees, how about something like having developers who have control of urban reserve peripheral property annually contributing to the fund that will pay for bringing additional water resources to Davis which are required to develop their properties.”
I’m sure something could be worked out but I doubt it could be done without granting development rights. Measure J bites Davis in the butt again.
An additional ten years would allow rates to go up much less if you delayed construction and banked the money until you built and then spread out the debt over a longer period.
[quote]That being said, on the outside chance that we might have a water emergency, it makes sense to secure the right-of-way to build such a pipeline if were ever needed in the future and make sure that no one builds houses or other structures on top of where the pipeline might be needed.– Gunrock[/quote]
Most definitely. At a bare minimum, everything should be in place.
If davis is going to be penalized monetarily every day they do not meet the new standards, then we cannot just “put the project off”.
Musser: I explained that above. Please go back and carefully read what I wrote.
David:
[i]First, it would allow the city to build up a fund to pay for the $160 million project. [/i]
What source of funds do you propose the city use for this?
[i]Second, it would allow the city to implement a massive conservation program which might enable the city to either reduce the scope of this project or handle the salt outflow in other ways.[/i]
What percentage of water use reduction do you believe would be required, and how would you propose that be achieved?
[i]Finally, it would take the crunch away from trying to finance the project during times of economic hardship.[/i]
What economic conditions would have to prevail for you to support this project? You have opposed it for years now, since long before the current recession. If the city’s fiscal condition didn’t satisfy you 3 to 4 years ago, what makes you think conditions are going to be better 5 – 10 years from now? I don’t personally believe you would support this project under any circumstances.
[i]I would also like to point out that our deep water aquifer is, I believe, compliant even with the current extraordinarily stringent standards. That means that to meet the current, stringent standards which are likely to be modified, we would have decades to drill deep water aquifer wells. The deep water aquifer wells only cost about $3 million apiece compared with $160 million to $180 million. [/i]
Sue – its probably not a fair comparison to compare the cost of one deep well with the entire cost of the new project. I believe the city has approximately 30 wells in use. I’m not sure of the average useful life of a well, but I thought I had read that it was around 20 years. If so, then the deep well project is environmentally worse (because it uses more ground water) and would cost a similar amount.
[quote]I’m sure something could be worked out but I doubt it could be done without granting development rights. Measure J bites Davis in the butt again. [/quote]
I agree and would add that the growth control policies of this town have many costs. Like it or not, the Davis WWTP needs to be upgraded. Our existing source of drinking water is unreliable, and without a doubt unsustainable. Massive infrastructure projects like what’s needed in Davis are often paid in large part by developer “impact fees”. These projects are vastly more affordable to us poor ratepayers if there’s the political will.
Sue Greenwald
So help dumb ol’ me. What exactly are you proposing? Stay flexible? What is that? Some of your colleagues have taken a clear position, and you just keep offering the same BS.
[i] I’m not sure of the average useful life of a well, but I thought I had read that it was around 20 years.[/i]
I think wells have a 30 – 40 year life, and I recall that a number of our current wells are due for replacement within the next decade.
[quote]So help dumb ol’ me. What exactly are you proposing? Stay flexible? What is that? Some of your colleagues have taken a clear position, and you just keep offering the same BS.[/quote]I spelled out my position pretty clearly in my op-ed. I am supporting the project conditionally, dependent on the cost staying within the lower bounds of the estimates, a demonstration that Woodland can actually raise its rates to cover the cost of the project the way we are doing in Davis, and a complete separation between Davis and Woodland in terms of the financing. In other words, if Woodland has trouble with collections, it must be Woodland ratepayers who cover the difference, and if Davis has trouble with collections, it must be Davis ratepayers who make up the difference.
[quote]its probably not a fair comparison to compare the cost of one deep well with the entire cost of the new project. I believe the city has approximately 30 wells in use. I’m not sure of the average useful life of a well, but I thought I had read that it was around 20 years. If so, then the deep well project is environmentally worse (because it uses more ground water) and would cost a similar amount.[/quote]. No, wells would be cheaper. We wouldn’t have to replace all of the intermediate wells. We would replace the ones with the worst discharge water quality first — there is significant variation between the water in the various intermediate wells (remember that we are using the water now, that it is safe to drink).
Under this scenario, we would institute a rate structure to greatly increase conservation, redirect some of our intermediate wells for landscape irrigation (we are already doing this), and pay off the new wastewater plant before we start paying for the surface water project.
I remember a school board member once telling me that the school district tried to retire one school construction bond before issuing the next. That way, taxpayers are only paying for one huge capitol improvement at a time.
In an ideal world, that would be the way it should have been structured. It was unfortunate that we learned that we had to build an entirely new wastewater treatment plant after the surface water project planning was underway.
“With no limits in place, it’s hard to say how much the state would ding Davis. It’s safe to say it would total in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
sorry sue, but this does not suggest a small fine of a few dollars per unit. The state, if its demands are not met, can always up the fines until its demands are met. You don’t know how much they are going to penalize us.
“sorry sue…”
Sorry Elaine! This statement as well as others on this thread from the staunch supporters of going forward with this project NOW are increasingly weak when they attempt to be on-point. Of course, the official policy does not change until it IS officially changed. The politics of modifying the salinity standard and allowing time extensions to meet the new standards,with cities and voters now under severe economic strain, is undeniable. The court’s decision that now says that economic factors MUST be taken into account when administering these standards coupled with Regional Water Board official, Ken Landau, statement makes the case for a prudent policy of halting the progress of this new water project until these issues are sorted out by the Water Board and Legislature.
Musser,
Again, it looks as if we will have decades to comply with current standards, current standards are likely to be relaxed, our deep water aquifer already meets standards, and fines in our region have been running in the order of .50 cents a year per unit in Vacaville and $7.50 a year a unit in Woodland.
Meeting the TDS requirements doesn’t look like the strongest argument for going forward with the project at this time.
[quote]”sorry sue…”
Sorry Elaine! This statement as well as others on this thread from the staunch supporters of going forward with this project NOW are increasingly weak when they attempt to be on-point. Of course, the official policy does not change until it IS officially changed. The politics of modifying the salinity standard and allowing time extensions to meet the new standards,with cities and voters now under severe economic strain, is undeniable. The court’s decision that now says that economic factors MUST be taken into account when administering these standards coupled with Regional Water Board official, Ken Landau, statement makes the case for a prudent policy of halting the progress of this new water project until these issues are sorted out by the Water Board and Legislature.[/quote]
The “sorry sue” was not my comment. I sign all my emails with the signature E Roberts Musser, to avoid confusion. I have not made up my mind whether I am for or against this project as of yet.
[quote]In an ideal world, that would be the way it should have been structured. It was unfortunate that we learned that we had to build an entirely new wastewater treatment plant after the surface water project planning was underway.[/quote]
This statement has me at a loss… the original idea was to do both projects at the same time, then due to your objections about cost, experts were brought in. Those experts insisted we build the surface water project first, then determine the level of upgrades we would need to our wastewater treatment plant based on the amount of the surface water coming in and the degree to which customers can conserve water. Am I missing something here?
No Elaine, that is not accurate at all. First, we planned to do the surface water project. Then we learned that we were going to have to do a new wastewater treatment plant. Staff planned a $200 million wastewater treatment plant. The combined projects would have cost over well over $400 million for Davis ratepayers (if you add the Conway summer water purchase). That would have been a liability of well over $17,000 per single family house (given that houses use more water than units). That is beyond huge.
I eventually convinced the council to higher two wastewater treatment experts, who said that we could build a treatment plant that would be half the price and probably more flexible. They did not “insist that we build the surface water project first”. I don’t know where you got that idea.
From the report by Tchobonaglous and Schroeder: “A Recommended Path Forward:….
1. The City, together with the University and the City of Woodland, should move forward as rapidly as possible to develop a supply of surface water from the Sacramento River and other sources….
6. Once construction begins on the new water supply from the Sacramento River, reconsider the need for a new wastewater treatment plant.”
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/pdfs/Davis-Charrette-Report-Final.pdf[/url]
OOOPs! Correction: I eventually convinced the council to higher two wastewater treatment experts.
NO, NO, NO “to HIRE” — my fingers just won’t cooperate with my mind.
Don Shor: Interesting. I’ll ask George about that. I’ve talked quite a bit with George about this project, and I know I had talked with him about my hope that we could phase in the projects and pay for one before we started the other and that if we could pick one, that the water project would obviously be more valuable — but I don’t remember George saying that we might be able to postpone the waste water plant, and I don’t think that was the ultimate finding. He and Ed clearly wrote that at one time, and I’ll ask what the thinking was.
There are different constituents and different permit limits and regulations in flux. I think that where George now stands is that the waste water plant is unavoidable. I don’t think we could postpone building the new waste water plant by importing surface water. I also think we could avoid doing the surface water project the waste water plant is paid off, given the permit extensions and changing regulations.
Concerns over the long-term supply of our deep aquifer would be best served by doing the surface water project first, of course, but I don’t think that we can postpone the waste water plant. But I’ll check with George about that.
[quote]From the report by Tchobonaglous and Schroeder: “A Recommended Path Forward:….
1. The City, together with the University and the City of Woodland, should move forward as rapidly as possible to develop a supply of surface water from the Sacramento River and other sources….
6. Once construction begins on the new water supply from the Sacramento River, reconsider the need for a new wastewater treatment plant.”
http://cityofdavis.org/pw/wate…-Final.pdf[/quote]
Thank you Don for taking the trouble to find the actual documentation for my contention. This is exactly how I remember things happening, so it was nice to have my memory of what occurred confirmed…
To Sue: My recollection, which has now been confirmed, is that the two UCD experts felt doing the surface water project first 1) would not necessarily obviate the need for wastewater treatment plant upgrades; 2) but with water conservation and the surface water project in place, it might be possible to save a lot of money on just what upgrades would be required for the wastewater treatment plant… that is where the money savings would come in…
If the UCD experts are changing their positions all of the sudden, they need to come forward publicly and say so…
Went to one of the community forums given by Davis city staff on the increase in water rates. Apparently Bob Clarke of Davis Public Works called up and talked directly to the SWRCB spokesperson quoted in the Davis Enterprise article. Apparently the reporter took the SWRCB spokeperson’s words out of context. If a city does not comply with the state/federal discharge standards, the state must impose a mandatory fine. It is not an option, the state is required to impose the fine. There is a new law in place that allows the city to then ask for a 5 year extension (and perhaps one more 5 year extension I think – not sure on this point) to come into compliance. But the city will still be required to comply at some point in time, but may be granted an extension only if there is good cause. Because the city of Davis has plans in place and the means to complete those plans, it is less likely the state would be amenable to grant Davis an extension.
The Enterprise covered the community forum in today’s (Friday) paper. If you are a subscriber, here’s the link: [url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/water-project-may-cost-more-if-delayed-officials-say/[/url]
If not, you may want to pick up today’s issue, as they have reinstated the paywall at the Enterprise web site. Or, of course, you could avail yourself of one of the pay options they now have for access.