The Davis Enterprise recently ran an Op-Ed by an individual named Walter Sadler, who presents a very different view of the water project than the one we have gotten from city staff or from the council majority.
Looking at his background and experience on LinkedIn, Mr. Sadler recently retired from the City of Folsom’s Utilities Department, where he was assistant director. He describes his responsibilities to have included management of various operating divisions of the Utilities Department including “a surface water treatment plant (50 MGD); water quality and distribution system (pump stations and storage reservoirs); wastewater collection (gravity and pumped).”
In addition, he worked at Brown and Caldwell from 2001 to 2004 where he was “Project Manager/Engineer for a variety of design build and design bid build water supply projects.”
He also worked at Boyle Engineering where he was “responsible for development and management of a design build team for multiple municipal groundwater wells, pump stations and in some cases treatment facilities for iron and manganese removal.”
He has certificates as a professional engineer, a water treatment plant operator grade 3, and a water distribution system operator grade 2.
So when he writes, “As a rate payer, I have no objections to considering surface water as a future component of the city of Davis’ water supply. I do, however, have serious objections to the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Project as currently proposed; it has serious flaws. I will not support it.” – perhaps we ought to be listening to him.
He argues that “the project as proposed lacks a clear definitive plan by either the City or the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency. It should detail the true objectives of the project, risks and how the proposed facilities would be operated to create all the benefits (necessary or not) attributed to it.”
He further argues that the EIR from 2007 “and the ‘Community Report’ issued in 2007 by the project partners appear to be the only documents substantiating an ‘urgent need’ for the project. Yet the city of Davis’ recently adopted Urban Water Management Plan projects that water demands will be approximately 25 percent less than those presented in the EIR.”
“Alternatives considered were very limited. In fact, they did not consider ‘the continued strategic use of our current groundwater supplies…,’ as stated in the Community Report,” he adds.
“Only wells with wellhead treatment, which greatly inflates the costs, were evaluated. However, groundwater wells can be designed and operated to address some water quality issues without wellhead treatment,” he writes.
“Surface water is not a panacea to either city’s quest for long-term reliable supplies,” he adds.
“I’m sure that the elected representatives watching over this project have nothing but the best interests of the community in mind. Yet I do have difficulty accepting that they have the expertise to understand the complexity of the water quality issues associated with this project and its high costs, despite their assurances otherwise,” he continues.
He adds, “Recent statements illustrate that some either do not understand federal and state rule-making procedures on water quality standards, or is it more politically advantageous to ignore them, without regard to the costs, risks and lack of benefits of the project?”
He further adds, “Regarding the issue of salinity in either city’s wastewater discharge, a recent court ruling regarding the city of Tracy’s permit further demonstrates the need to rethink this aspect of the project. Discharge requirements should be determined by negotiation. Good science is called for, not merely an act of acquiesce to the Regional Water Quality Control Board by either city staff or elected officials.”
He notes that “the Regional Board has the responsibility of granting a discharge permit based on waste discharge requirements,” but points out that “its actions are regulated by the Porter Cologne Act. This act requires the Regional Board to ‘take into consideration’ the following factors: ‘the beneficial uses to be protected, the water quality objectives reasonably required for that purpose, other waste discharges, the need to prevent nuisance, and the provisions of Section 13241.’ “
“Section 13241 lists six ‘factors to be considered,’ including ‘economic considerations’ and ‘water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area.’ “
“If salinity is the issue, did either city consider alternatives to their current discharge methods, or did they evaluate the potential for water system operation changes to address the issue? Apparently not. In the documents currently available, nothing identifies and quantifies salt management strategies for either city’s wastewater customers. The paperwork merely states the need for surface water with no quantification of the benefits to the wastewater system and its rate payers,” he writes.
“The city of Davis lacks a clear understanding of the project’s objectives and risks. How the operation of the proposed facilities will achieve all the proposed benefits isn’t stated. The city is unable even at this late stage in the rate-setting process to delineate the impact on rates. I can only wonder if Woodland has a better understanding,” Mr. Sadler adds.
He concludes his article, “For Davis, a recent statement in The Enterprise that ‘staff members are in the process of figuring out what rates will be recommended to the City Council…’ further illustrate the need at this time for the City Council to step back. The council must rethink project objectives, risks, benefits and potentially cheaper alternatives before more money is spent on design and management of the proposed project. One can easily question, ‘Why surface water now?’ “
I have often been concerned that some of the same people who are advising the city on water issues have a vested interest in the project going forward. This arises from the idea that the elected officials do not have the expertise to evaluate this project without city staff, consultants and engineers explaining the matter to them.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Mr. Sandler’s article should be copied and “posterized”. It represents most of the salient arguments that will galvanize a signature-gathering effort for a citizen-initiated referendum which will unquestionably, IMO, win an overwhelming majority vote in the resulting ballot measure to halt the progress of this project at this time.
I read with interest the op Ed piece yesterday so thx for this David. While reading it I wished the “pro” article alongside it could have been designed so those authors (Krovosa and Souza) could comment on each of Mr Sadler’s points. Maybe this could be done in the Enterprise or here on the Vanguard? It would make it much easier to understand if both sides were using the same “questions”!
“I have often been concerned that some of the same people who are advising the city on water issues have a vested interest in the project going forward.”
Former Councilmember Saylor, photographed “schmoozing” with the consulting firm that was slated to make a “killing” on this water project that he was spearheading should not be lost on anyone. In addition, developer interests, who were his prime supporters for Council election and no doubt will be solicited to fund his future efforts to win an Assembly seat CANNOT build any future large Davis residential developments without this surface water project.
“CANNOT build any future large Davis residential developments without this surface water project.”
Davisite2, it has concerned me that this might be what this is all about and we’ll all end up paying for it. It’s time to step back and take a timeout. If they go ahead and push this through then it’s time for a referendum.
One thing that seems to be glaringly missing in Sadler’s article is suggestions on what to do if we don’t approve the surface water project. What alternatives is he suggesting? For instance, he states:
1) “…they did not consider the continued strategic use of our current groundwater supplies…” (specifics?)
2) “…Major changes in the CA water arena have occurred since 2007 in conservation requirements, regulatory oversight, delta issues, etc which should be considered, not ignored…” (specifics?)
3) “…this current rush to the altar for the project crushes any opportunity to re-evaluate it from a technical, operational, regulatory or economic viewpoint…” (specifics?)
4) “…Discharge requirements should be determined by negotiation. Good science is called for, not merely an act of acquiesce to the RWQCB by either staff or elected officials…” (negotiation to do what exactly?)
5) “…If salinity is the issue, did either city consider alternatives to their current discharge methods, or did they evaluate the potential for water system operation changes to address the issue?” (specifics?)
This op-ed piece is long on complaints, but short on alternatives. Sadler concedes “…I have no objections to considering surface water as a future component of the city of Davis’ water supply”, then contradicts himself and complains the city’s documentary justification for the project is less than convincing – “How the operation of the proposed facilities will achieve all the proposed benefits isn’t stated…”. His only substantive suggestions seem to be a) nebulous “negotiations” with the RWQCB (to do what?) and b) to slow things down for more consideration/deliberation (to do what exactly?) – which means there is an even shorter window to collect the rate increases necessary to get this project done. So I would ask Mr. Sadler: What alternatives he would propose if the surface water project is not approved? I’m keeping an open mind, but his article is long on complaints and short on specifics…
“we’ll all end up paying for it….”
It is clear that there will not be any large residential development considered in the near future, given stagnant if not downward economic projections and housing market glut. The efforts to “steamroll” this project through without delay would put in place the necessary financial bond obligations on the backs of current and future Davis residents rather than significantly paid for by hefty developer impact fees.
“…I have no objections to considering surface water as a future component of the city of Davis’ water supply”, then contradicts himself and complains the city’s documentary justification for the project is less than convincing..”
ERM…Any individual with an “open-mind” recognizes that there is absolutely NO contradiction between the two above statements.
[quote]The efforts to “steamroll” this project through without delay would put in place the necessary financial bond obligations on the backs of current and future Davis residents rather than significantly paid for by hefty developer impact fees.[/quote]
A fair point. I would like to know if there is any way we can get developers in the future to help pay for this project once it is a done deal…
[quote]ERM: “…I have no objections to considering surface water as a future component of the city of Davis’ water supply”, then contradicts himself and complains the city’s documentary justification for the project is less than convincing..”
davisite 2: Any individual with an “open-mind” recognizes that there is absolutely NO contradiction between the two above statements.[/quote]
The author seems to be saying he has no objection to considering the surface water project, then proceeds to lay out objection upon objection with almost no substance or suggestions of alternatives. If you read between the lines, I think what the author is getting at is to delay the project, and hope that we can negotiate an extension for this project. But an extension for how long, for instance? 25 years? LOL Yet he does not come right out and say that bc he knows that is a risky and unlikely proposition at best. The article is very muddy on specific details, but long on endless carping with no actual specifics. It would be much more helpful if the author would tell us what he is actually proposing the city do if the surface water project is not approved. What is the alternative he is suggesting? I’m all ears…
Here are some answers to questions I have read yesterday and a link to some more reading on the project. Because of length I broke it up in two parts.
The total well production in 2009 was approximately 12,800 acre-feet averaging approximately 11.5 million gallons per day [mgd]). Maximum well production occurs during the hot summer months when irrigation demands are the greatest. Minimum well production occurs during the wet winter months when irrigation demands are drastically reduced. Water production nearly triples in the hottest months (e.g., July at 17.4 mgd) vs. the coolest months (e.g., February at 6.3 mgd)
Below is excerpts from Jim Yost’s January 19, 2011 testimony before the SWRCB on Term 91. The link is to the full testimony which is a short read with a very good description of the reasons for project and the goals. Slide 36 shows that on average 9 months out of the year there will be no need for conjunctive use and full surface water be used by all in Davis. And finally I provide excerpts from the WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY that shows how ALL Davites will have the same water during Term 91 days.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/daviswoodland/daviswoodland_wdcwa1.pdf
25. The permits will not allow diversions when the diversion prohibition in Term 91 is in effect. Term 91 prohibits diversions when stored Central Valley Project or State Water Project water is being released for the benefit of in-basin uses or Delta water quality. Exhibit WDCWA-15 lists the numbers of days that the Term 91 diversion prohibition was in effect each year from 1984 through 2010. This information is summarized in Slide 36. The permits will contain terms providing that when the Term 91 diversion prohibition is in effect and water therefore is not available for diversion under the permits, the cities will need to use other sources of water.
26. Currently the Agency is evaluating other water supply sources that the Agency may use during times when the Term 91 diversion prohibition is in effect. Such sources may include water that may be diverted under water rights purchased from holders of upstream, senior Sacramento River water rights, or transfers of water by the holders of such rights (see Slide 37). The Agency also is evaluating a potential conjunctive use project that would be constructed in western Yolo County to provide the Agency with surface water during summer months. Another option would be for the Agency to develop aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells and integrate them into DWWSP operations. When demands are lower in the winter and there is unappropriated water in the Sacramento River, some of this water could be diverted, treated and injected into ASR wells and stored in the groundwater aquifer until needed in the summer months. This arrangement could provide both a source of supplemental supply during the peak demand periods and also improved groundwater quality for the two cities during these periods.
From the WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY:
Evaluation of Blending Approaches
Several approaches to blending the groundwater and surface water were analyzed to determine the most effective method for maximizing an even distribution of water quality throughout the water system.
Since the hardness of the deep wells is similar to surface water, the analysis focused on TDS mixing. These approaches would also apply to hardness mixing if intermediate wells were used. The approaches are:
1. Pump wells directly into system at existing locations
2. Pump wells into tanks connected to the distribution system
3. Pump wells into tanks with dedicated surface water piping to tanks
4. Pump wells into surface water transmission mains near surface water supply point
5. Locate wells at the surface water treatment plant (SWTP) and mix prior to conveyance
Recommended Blending Approach
Blending approach 1 consisting of pumping the deep wells directly into the water distribution system is recommended for the City to implement for the conjunctive use project. Since hardness is the primary
water quality constituent and the use of the deep aquifer wells provides groundwater with a hardness concentration similar to surface water, the cost of a more expensive blending approach is not justified.
The short-term groundwater bubbles that would result during peak hour demands around the deep wells would not impact hardness concentrations to customers, but would temporarily provide higher TDS level water to customers in the vicinity of the bubbles. The timing of the occurrence of these bubbles could be managed by the City to reduce TDS impacts to customers by taking steps to shift the peak hour demand periods to the early morning hours. The City’s current peak hour demands are already somewhat in the
early morning hours. The temporary higher TDS level water delivered to customers in the vicinity of the bubbles during peak hour demand periods would primarily be used for landscape irrigation and not for potable drinking water purposes.
If better blending of the groundwater than can be accomplished with approach 1 is desired in the future, either to better distribute TDS levels or balance hardness levels when using intermediate depth wells, blending approach 4 consisting of pumping wells into the surface water transmission main is the recommended approach. In addition, if new wells are needed in the future, it is recommended that the SWTP site be considered for these new wells as described for blending approach 5. Blending groundwater directly with high quality surface water is a key benefit of these two approaches.
Other communities in California have introduced surface water into water systems that were previously solely groundwater supplied. The experiences of these communities help to inform the City’s efforts to shift to a conjunctive use system. The City of West Sacramento shifted from a groundwater supply to a surface water supply in the 1980s. In the early 1990s, the City of Modesto shifted to a partial surface water supply from Modesto Irrigation District primarily to halt significant declines in groundwater levels. Ten years ago the cities of Tracy, Manteca, and Lathrop started using surface water supplied by the South San Joaquin Irrigation District. A common lesson with all of these case studies is the distribution system water quality impacts due to the change in how water travels through the distribution system. Changes in pipe flow direction can result in positive Total Coliform samples. Because of this issue, it is
recommended that the City pursue an aggressive unidirectional pipe flushing program that is completed prior to the introduction of surface water.
[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b]: I have been laying out the “alternative” for you over and over again. I wish you would refrain from continually implying that no alternatives have been offered, since alternatives have always been offered.
The alternative is to work through the Central Valley Clean Water Association on permitting flexibility through the processes that have been set up by the Water Resources Control Board. We have to make the case that five conditions have radically changed since we started planning the surface water project, and it affects the fiscal feasibility of our current schedule. It will be feasible to do the project when we have most of our newly-required wastewater plant paid off, or federal and state funds become available again and/or the fiscal situation of the city improves. It would also help if the University would contribute to the project as they initially agreed to, since they have stated that they need the project in order to meet their own permitting problems.
I suspect that we would offer to work out an interim arrangement along the lines of lowering salinity and selenium levels by digging more deep aquifer wells (which is chump change compared to embarking on the surface water project now) with its much low salinity and selenium levels, instituting conservation and irrigating our parks with and other city landscaping with our intermediate wells, etc.
Contrary to the public statements of at least one member of the Clean Water JPA, our current surface water permit is good for 40 years. We shouldn’t have a problem retaining those rights as long as we have a clear plan for completing the project within that time frame, since we have already made substantial progress. We could finance our new wastewater plant to pay it off more quickly – perhaps 20 or 25 years. (Once the wastewater plant is paid off, the combined water/wastewater bills would decrease.)
I would further suggest committing to pay for our 20% if the intake at Conway if and when the Conway owner obtains his federal funds to do his 80% share, as well as keeping our eye out for good deals on easements for the pipeline. This would further illustrate project progress.
If we can phase in our huge water/wastewater and probably storm water projects, it will keep utility payments at a feasible level.
Regarding [b]Stephen Souza’s[/b] comments:
I don’t quite see the relevance of these comments to the current discussion.
Stephen seems to be talking about purchasing more and more additional water for the surface water project. This would make our bills even higher.
In fact, at a recent public meeting a Clean Water JPA staff member mentioned purchasing more summer water as Stephen is suggesting, and I stepped forward and said that I thought that we had purchased enough summer water and that the original idea was combining surface water with well water.
At that point, Jim Yost stepped forward and said that he agreed with me, and that we had already purchased enough summer water.
So I really, really don’t understand what Stephen is talking about either in terms of relevance to the current discussion or substantively.
I should add that Mr.Sadler is making many of the points that I have been making at council meetings, in an Enterprise op-ed and on this blog, and I was very happy to see him come forward. He is saying what many experts have been saying behind the scenes, but cannot say publicly due to the nature of their jobs.
Sue:
“[i]It will be feasible to do the project when we have most of our newly-required wastewater plant paid off, or federal and state funds become available again and/or the fiscal situation of the city improves. …
We could finance our new wastewater plant to pay it off more quickly – perhaps 20 or 25 years.[/i]”
To clarify: you believe we should wait [b]at least 20 to 25 [/b]years to bring in the surface water unless other funds materialize?
Elaine and Don claim to be able to “read between the lines” of those who offer opposition to proceeding with the surface water project to allow sufficient political space and time/energy to explore more fully the details/consequences/alternatives. I suggest that reading between the lines and claiming to know the REAL underlying motivations is not productive(one can turn this around and search for the REAL motivations of those who are aggressive advocates). Let the reader consider all arguments as presented on their own merits.
“to slow things down for more consideration/deliberation (to do what exactly?”
“A fair point. I would like to know if there is any way we can get developers in the future to help pay for this project once it is a done deal…”
Elaine…
….wouldn’t the first quote perhaps allow the finding of an answer to your second quote?
[b]Don Shor:[/b] I think I made it pretty clear that I feel that ideally we would phase in the two projects so that we pay off the new wastewater plant before we embark on the surface water project. However, I also said that phasing the two projects in to [b]THE EXTENT POSSIBLE[/b] would be preferable to doing them at once, in order to decrease the period of time during which one cohort has to pay for these two projects at once.
Both the surface water project and the Conway water rights are permanent improvements, like the Roman aqueducts. Ideally, they would be paid for during a period between other massive water/wastewater and storm water improvements.
Fiscally, this is a very poor time to embark on the project. We have build a new wastewater treatment facility, new storm water regulations could mean large new storm water costs, the state and federal government cannot provide the help that they usually do. The city budget is in disarray, we are a public employee town and public salary reductions and layoffs are and there is a growing fear that we could be facing a very rough decade.
Twenty or twenty-five years only sounds shocking to you because we have been instilled with an artificial sense of urgency. We will do this project. We have everything in place if we start running into problems. There is no reason not to work through the regulatory process in order to postpone this project until a time when it is feasible.
I think you are severely underestimating the fiscal consequences of undertaking this project now.
davisite: [i]”Elaine and Don claim to be able to “read between the lines””[/i]
I neither make nor imply any such claim. I was seeking clarification from Sue, and she provided it as she always does. Sue and I can disagree or approach things from different angles without rancor. My question was not rhetorical, argumentative, or didactic.
[i]”The Enterprise said Mr. Sadler is “a professional engineer with more than 40 years of experience in design and management of water resources facilities, surface and groundwater, in both the public and private sectors, in the Sacramento Valley.”[/i]
Writing to me on an unrelated topic not very long ago, Walter Sadler informed me that “… for the last seven years I was the Assistant Utility Director/Principal Engineer with the City of Folsom Utility Department (now retired and going back into the private sector).” Mr. Sadler is also a long time resident of Davis and a fan of the Lexicon Artist.
Along the lines of professional opinions about the river water project, Ed Schroeder opines in favor of the project ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/better-water-is-needed-now/[/url]): “Better water is needed, now.” [quote]I continue to believe that prudence demands developing a surface water supply at this time. The Sacramento River is a high-quality source of municipal water supplies used by Sacramento, West Sacramento, 550,000 people in Contra Costa County, the Metropolitan Water Agency of Southern California and many others.
Competition for surface water is increasing from other users and the demands that maintaining delta water quality place on supplies. Obtaining rights to Sacramento River water may not be possible in the future and the cost of buying water rights is expected to increase dramatically in coming years.
Postponing development will reduce future options and may require more expensive alternatives. [/quote] It was principally at the urging of Sue Greenwald that Professors Ed Schroeder and George Tchobanoglous were brought in to study our water and water treatment needs. If you are done with all of your summer mystery novels, perhaps the next time you head to the beach you might want to take with you a book by Dr. Tchobanoglous ([url]http://www.amazon.com/George-Tchobanoglous/e/B001H6POQ6/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1[/url])!
Excerpts:
“…the condition of the city’s wells and the quality of water in the intermediate aquifer is deteriorating.”
“…the city has developed several new wells in the “deep aquifer” at depths of more than 1,500 feet. The deep aquifer is believed connected to the upper intermediate aquifer and pumping could result in drawing contaminants from higher elevations into the deep wells as well as additional ground subsidence and loss of aquifer capacity.”
“More important is the unknown sustainability of the deep aquifer…”
“Based on the available information, we concluded, and I continue to believe, that prudence demands developing a surface water supply at this time.”
“Competition for surface water is increasing from other users and the demands that maintaining delta water quality place on supplies. Obtaining rights to Sacramento River water may not be possible in the future and the cost of buying water rights is expected to increase dramatically in coming years.
“Postponing development will reduce future options and may require more expensive alternatives….”
Setting aside the questions of timing and prioritization, why isn’t UCD part of the deal?
If a City COuncil majority feels compelled to push these projects through, the least the Majority can do is put the rate increases to a vote in the normal elections process.
I wanted George Tchobanoglous and Ed Schroeder to review the wastewater treatment plant, because other citizen experts had told me that we did not need to spend $200 million on the wastewater treatment plant. Staff had said that we needed the $200 million design, and a contract for the $200 million design was on the city manager’s desk ready to sign when professors Tschobanoglous and Schroeder explained to us that we could do a wastewater treatment plant for half the price. Ed and George are the world’s leading experts on wastewater plant design.
That said, Ed and George are not experts on the current changing regulatory environment, nor on groundwater, nor on water rights. Nor do they necessarily agree on everything when it comes to issues that diverge from wastewater plant design. When I talked with George, he was much more concerned with the trade-offs between cost and advantages of surface water now than was Ed.
Ed is talking about groundwater and water rights here. When I talked with the leading expert on groundwater a few years back, he said that the proper studies on the groundwater were never done, and thought that the time frame was more likely to be 40 to 60 years than 4 to 6 years. That said, we have everything in place if we run into groundwater problems.
Ed’s main argument is about water rights, and on that he is not completely informed. Ed says that [quote]”Competition for surface water is increasing from other users and the demands that maintaining delta water quality place on supplies. Obtaining rights to Sacramento River water may not be possible in the future and the cost of buying water rights is expected to increase dramatically in coming years.” [/quote]In fact, we have our water rights secured already, and they will not be taken away if we postpone the project, as I have already explained above. We also have already purchased a sufficient amount of groundwater.
[quote]E. Roberts Musser: I have been laying out the “alternative” for you over and over again. I wish you would refrain from continually implying that no alternatives have been offered, since alternatives have always been offered.
The alternative is to work through the Central Valley Clean Water Association on permitting flexibility through the processes that have been set up by the Water Resources Control Board. We have to make the case that five conditions have radically changed since we started planning the surface water project, and it affects the fiscal feasibility of our current schedule. It will be feasible to do the project when we have most of our newly-required wastewater plant paid off, or federal and state funds become available again and/or the fiscal situation of the city improves. It would also help if the University would contribute to the project as they initially agreed to, since they have stated that they need the project in order to meet their own permitting problems. [/quote]
How do you respond to the representative from the SWRCB, who states emphatically that any savings a city realizes by not moving forward with a project that would bring it into new water standard compliance will evaporate through fines?
Also, to put off the surface water project until after a wastewater treatment plant upgrade will mean doing a more expensive wastewater treatment plant upgrade, no? Remember, the two UCD experts indicated that the surface water project needs to be done first and foremost to realize the necessary savings in the wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
It is also likely that financing and construction costs will be cheaper NOW rather than LATER…
What do we do if the deep aquifers do not hold up for the projected 40 to 60 years you, a nonexpert, are presupposing? As you have said many times, you don’t know for sure how long the deep aquifers will last. Schroeder has posited the notion that as the deep aquifers are pumped, it will suck contaminants from the mid-level aquifers into the deep level aquifers.
[quote]However, I also said that phasing the two projects in to THE EXTENT POSSIBLE would be preferable to doing them at once, in order to decrease the period of time during which one cohort has to pay for these two projects at once. [/quote]
The question is not so much “to the extent possible”, but more accurately, “to the extent advisable”. There is no doubt many questions remain unanswered and may even be unknowable –
1) How long will the deep aquifers last?
2) To what extent will the SWQRCB fine cities who fail to come into compliance?
3) What savings can be realized from the original Prop 218 notice, if proper pressure is brought to bear?
[quote]That said, Ed and George are not experts on the current changing regulatory environment, nor on groundwater, nor on water rights. Nor do they necessarily agree on everything when it comes to issues that diverge from wastewater plant design. When I talked with George, he was much more concerned with the trade-offs between cost and advantages of surface water now than was Ed. [/quote]
It appears you are now disagreeing w the advice of experts of your own choosing…
To the list of concerns above, I would add:
4) Can Woodland hold up its financial end?
[quote]Elaine and Don claim to be able to “read between the lines” of those who offer opposition to proceeding with the surface water project to allow sufficient political space and time/energy to explore more fully the details/consequences/alternatives. I suggest that reading between the lines and claiming to know the REAL underlying motivations is not productive(one can turn this around and search for the REAL motivations of those who are aggressive advocates). Let the reader consider all arguments as presented on their own merits.[/quote]
The reader is forced to “read between the lines” bc the author refuses to be explicit about what he is advocating for. It is easy to complain, much more difficult to come up with substantive alternatives. From what I can tell, the only “substantive alternative” advocated thus far is as follows:
We know we need the surface water project, but it is impossible for taxpayers to shoulder the cost right now, so we have to put the project off for the number of years it takes the city to pay off the wastewater treatment plant first. But that leaves a lot of unanswered questions in my mind:
1) Just how long will the deep aquifers last? Long enough to complete the wastewater treatment plant upgrade?
2) Just how much will the SWQRCB fine cities who do not come into compliance with the new water quality standards?
3) Won’t doing the wastewater treatment plant upgrade first cause us to pay more for this project than if we do the surface water project first?
4) Aren’t the costs of financing and construction cheaper now than later?
5) Can we reduce the water rate increases to a more acceptable level by taking some additional risks in some of the assumptions?
Thoughtful, informative, and mostly civil discussion. I’m sure it must have been answered somewhere, but I don’t see why, if we don’t do the whole project now, the waste water treatment would come before the surface water. If we brought in the surface water first, wouldn’t it reduce the amount of salts going into the river as waste and reduce the need for treatment?
[quote]Thoughtful, informative, and mostly civil discussion. I’m sure it must have been answered somewhere, but I don’t see why, if we don’t do the whole project now, the waste water treatment would come before the surface water. If we brought in the surface water first, wouldn’t it reduce the amount of salts going into the river as waste and reduce the need for treatment?[/quote]
BINGO!