By Alan Pryor –
For full disclosure and to allow readers to weigh the merits of the facts later in the article, I have been a long term strong supporter of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency water project. I believe, that we cannot continue to suck more and more groundwater from an aquifer with finite capacity forever.
Since that fateful decision to pass on acquiring Putah Creek surface water rights, we have watched our intermediate aquifer wells deteriorate to the point where they almost unusable for potable purposes without blending with better quality water from deep aquifer wells drilled in the past decade. Now, we may very well see water quality standards tightening in the next few years with respect to hexavalent chromium that may dramatically (by many, many fold) increase the cost of treating that deep aquifer water to meet drinking water quality standards. Combined with the fact that the City is currently in violation of a number of wastewater discharge standards as a result of the deteriorating quality of our current well water, it is clear that the “free-water ride” for Davis is over.
Failure to take aggressive action now to secure a stable future water supply could result in diminishing water quality, restricted availability, and huge increases in our water and waste water treatment costs. Fortunately, another opportunity has presented itself to the City to acquire surface water rights that is now before us and the City has the opportunity to partner with Woodland to take advantage of this perhaps last opportunity.
But there are always a few wrinkles to work out as a project of this magnitude works its way through the regulatory, engineering, and financial analysis maze to completion. As it turns out, one of the biggest wrinkles to surface may, in fact, be able to be turned into an advantage to the cities of Davis and Woodland and result in very substantial near term capital and future operating cost savings for the proposed water project; albeit at the expense of loss of acquisition of senior long term water rights.
One issue involves water supply and the “splitting” of existing senior water rights between the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (“the Water Project”) and the Conaway Preservation Group. The other involves plant capacity and options to balance water needs with water availability at various times during the year. They are complex, interrelated issues.
The Water Project involves the acquisition of two different types of Sacramento River water rights allowing for the use of the river water by the Water Project. One set of licenses covers junior water rights for the use of up to 45,000 acre-feet per year by the Water Project which is the bulk of the water expected to be drawn from the Sacramento River. This water is free to the project and the only costs are for pumping and treatment. The permit for the rights to this water has already be approved by the State Water Board
However, these are “junior” water rights meaning there is a limitation on their use during normal years when summer water flow is low and water is released from Federal and State dams to allow for required inflows into the Delta. These limitations are known as Term 91 restrictions and prohibit use of the water from the Sacramento River by junior rights holders when low flow conditions exist.
According to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted by the Water Project to the State Water Board as part of the project evaluation, it was predicted that such water use by the project will only be allowed from 5 to 7 months of the year during the late fall, winter, and early spring. The water obtained under these junior water rights would normally be expected to supply more than 100% of the water needs of Woodland and Davis in normal water years if the use of such water could be spread over the entire year.
Unfortunately, that will not be the case unless some means of storing water pumped during the winter for summer use is employed. In the absence of a such a means to store water drawn during the winter months and held for summer use or obtaining alternate rights to summer water use, the cities would be forced to rely solely on well water separately pumped by each cities’ existing wells during the summer.
To partially cover this summer shortage, the water project has also signed an agreement with Conaway Preservation Group (the owners of Conaway Ranch) granting the project “senior” water rights allowing use of up to 10,000 additional acre-feet of water per year which use can be made during summer months even when Term 91 restrictions are otherwise imposed. The term of this agreement was for 24 years after which the water project would hold the senior water rights in perpetuity. The price paid by the water project to Conaway for acquisition of these senior water rights was $2,600,000 per year starting in 2016 and increasing 2% per year – or totaling about $80,000,000 during the 24 year period. That works out to a price of $260/acre-foot in the first year. Project proponents claim this is a very fair and equitable price especially since permanent rights are obtained after 24 years. Project opponents claim this is expensive compared to the cost of pumping groundwater. The later claim is certainly true if groundwater quality could be guaranteed, wastewater discharge standards for selenium are loosened, and new drinking water standards are not imposed for hexavalent chromium.
The State Water Board must also approve this agreement and that is a wrinkle. The existing licenses covering these senior water rights now held by Conaway Ranch must be split. In June, an application to allow for such a split was made to the State Water Board by Conaway Preservation Group.
Such water transfer applications are subject to protests filed by other parties and during the allowable protest period 5 protests were submitted from the US Bureau of Reclamation, the California Department of Water Resources, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Natural Resources Defense Council jointly with Defenders of Wildlife, and a private individual. Conaway Preservation Group has 180 days to settle these protests through negotiations with the protesters or the protests must be considered and evaluated by the State Water Board when considering the license split application early next year. While it is standard with any water rights applications that many parties will protest, if the protests are not settled in this case, the approval for the license split could be in doubt.
In addition to the lack of proper environmental review and mitigation particularly with respect to impacts to protected species and habitat, the main arguments of the protesters are that the proposed “license splits” are actually nothing more than groundwater substitutions by Conaway Ranch. That is, Conaway is planning on drilling +/- 18 new groundwater wells adjacent to Willow Slough which runs through the Conaway Ranch. Willow Slough is tributary to the Sacramento River so the argument is made by the protesters that this is like sticking another straw into the River since they are hydraulically connected.
Nor can Conaway Ranch split the licenses without substituting groundwater because they still have to engage in actively farming the property according to the agreement Conaway Ranch signed with Yolo County when the complex series of agreements surrounding the water project were negotiated. Given this dilemma, the approval of the Conaway license split application and the acquisition of these senior summer water rights for 10,000 acre-feet is not yet a done deal.
What happens if the split license is not approved? It would appear that the water project would not get these senior rights and would have to instead rely on the 45,000 acre-feet for generally 5-7 months of the year to which it currently has junior rights and pays nothing. This would also mean that the water project would save $80,000,000 otherwise due to Conaway Preservation Group over 24 years but would lose the free perpetual rights to this water thereafter. But it also means that the water project would also have to figure out how to make the 45,000 acre-feet drawn during the winter months last through the entire year if they wanted to avoid relying entirely on well water during the summer. Of course, the only possible solution is to store the water drawn from the river during the months of plenty for subsequent use during the dry summer months.
This brings us to the next wrinkle which is plant capacity. Regardless of whether or not the water license split is allowed, the water project still faces the dilemma of efficiently treating and delivering the 45,000 acre-feet of junior water rights water that can be drawn during an approximate average of 6 months each year because this amount is far in excess of the combined needs of Woodland and Davis during this period each year. In other words, they can’t just pump it and treat it because it has no place to go.
Building tanks for such storage would cost far in excess of the cost of the water itself. The only other viable alternative is to store the water BELOW ground by using aquifer injection. This is a common conservation method now routinely done in Southern California which has been plagued with water shortages for many years. It is a relatively new concept in Northern California because of our relative abundance of water which is rapidly drawing to a close.
Fortunately, the water project has planned for the need for such envisioned conjunctive use of the water and the City of Woodland is now drilling an aquifer storage injection well for test purposes. Even if this aquifer injection model works, there still remains the problem of the water project’s treatment plant capacity being effectively utilized.
For example, if the treatment plant treated the entire 45,000 acre-feet during the 6 months of the year when it will be allowed to draw this river water and delivered this water to Woodland and Davis for injection in their own aquifer storage wells, the plant capacity would need to be about 250 acre-feet per day. But after 6 months the plant would only be utilized to treat the 10,000 acre-feet obtained under the senior water rights license split or be mothballed for 6 months until the next wet winter season came when it could again start processing its 45,000 acre-feet during the ensuing 6 months. Paying for such treatment capacity and underutilizing it or idling it 6 months of the year does not make economic sense.
The only viable alternative solution would be for the water project itself to inject 50% (or more) of the raw river water directly into aquifers near to the treatment plant. This raw water could then be drawn back out of the aquifers during the 6 months when water cannot be drawn directly from the river. After recovery from the wells, this water could then be treated in the normal manner and subsequently delivered to the respective cities. If done carefully and properly, the water treatment plant capacity could be then reduced by up to 50% from 250 acre-feet per day to about 125 acre-feet per day. While this will not reduce the treatment plant costs by half because many of the plant costs are fixed, huge savings could still be realized.
Combined with the $80,000,000 saved by not purchasing the senior summer water rights from Conaway Ranch IF the senior water rights license split is not granted, total project capital and operating costs could be easily reduced by well over $150,000,000 and probably much more. That would pay for a whole lot of injection wells.
In addition to the substantially reduced costs associated with this approach, this proposed solution allows a great deal of flexibility to the water project in terms of efficient use of water resources. For instance, it would provide the water project the ability to sell additional treated water it acquired for free to Woodland (allowing greater growth in that City if desired) or sell water to the University of California at Davis (to reduce their own reliance on groundwater) during summer months.
Plus because Davis would not be so reliant on groundwater during summer months (although some blending with groundwater will almost certainly be necessary), it substantially reduces salinity and selenium in the City’s wastewater discharge thus satisfying those legal discharge requirements also.
By providing a more uniform, very high quality water supply throughout the entire year, the City could also ban water softeners (because they would be completely unnecessary) thereby reducing salt loading into the waste water system by almost 7,000,000 pounds per year further easing the load on the wastewater treatment plant.
But there are still a few more wrinkles to work out. For one, although the hydrogeological studies performed by the water project engineers indicate that such aquifer storage is a viable option, we really won’t know for sure until the Woodland test well is complete and operating for some period of time.
Another problem is that there has to be adequate aquifer storage capacity near the water project treatment plant itself to store the raw river water for later treatment during the summer. This would mean that envisioned injection wells run and maintained by the cities of Woodland and Davis, respectively, to store treated water within their own municipal boundaries would no longer be necessary. The availability of land for these injection wells local to the planned water project treatment plant itself has not been investigated to my knowledge but it seems plausible that reasonably close locations for the wells could be secured.
Yet another problem is that the initial EIR submitted by the project to the State Water Board did not address such substantial aquifer storage so an entirely new EIR must be prepared and submitted to the State Water Board when applying for a new license allowing for such storage. This, of course, would require a whole range of new engineering analyses to be performed. An additional EIR is being planned for the water project for submission to the Water Board to allow for the water project to construct their own outtake facility in the event funding is not available to Reclamation District 2035 which is currently seeking such funds to construct a joint outtake facility with the water project. It would certainly save many hundreds of thousand of dollars and months of time if such an EIR and subsequent permit application also included the analysis and request to the Water Board for such conjunctive aquifer storage.
Finally, even with such a solution, the City of Davis summer water needs would probably still not be entirely satisfied requiring some use of existing deep aquifer wells by the City. Or in the alternative, the City could finally get serious about summer water conservation and implement a widespread public and private xeriscaping program in the City.
But for potential savings by the water project of $100,000,000 or more, it would seem to be well worth the effort and result in a water delivery system that is a world-class model of efficient, economic use of dwindling water resources and be our legacy gift to the next generation of Davis residents.
Author’s Note: This was a very difficult article to research and write because of the complexities of state water laws. After submitting it for review to both water project proponents and opponents, I found that nobody was happy. Proponents of the project claim I am raising issues of tangential importance late in the game, that my article diminishes the importance of the senior water rights acquisition, and that it unfairly casts the water project in a negative light by speculating that substantial savings might accrue if these sublicenses are not approved – i.e. implying they are not necessary. Opponents of the water project claim I am minimizing the importance of the possible loss of the senior water rights water rights and gloss over the other shortcomings they perceive to be inherent in the water project. All I am trying to do is presents facts as they now stand and propose eventual solutions to vexing water storage problems the water project must overcome whether the senior water rights transfers are approved or not.
Thank you for the most cogent discussion I’ve read in this ‘debate’, and for providing the best justification for a temporary halt to the project.
Why is this being presented at the 11th hour?
I don’t see how this is a justification for a temporary halt in the project. The project is not even scheduled to start up for 5 years. Proponents of the project have always noted that engineering details are continuously being refined as the project proceeds which is completely normal for a substantial capital improvement project of this type. In fact, the vast bulk of the engineering is ahead of schedule and that is why substantial reductions have able to be made in the proposed rate structures. If things come to pass as are discussed in this article, substantial additional savings would accrue to the project. Why in the world would you want to stop a project because there is a risk that you may end up saving even more money in the future as you proceed?
Hopefully the error of Putah Creek will not be repeated tomorrow night.
Thanks Alan, for a very, very informative article. It does show the complexities involved in a huge capital project like this…
[i]”we cannot continue to suck more and more groundwater from an aquifer with [b]finite[/b] capacity forever.”[/i]
Finite? Doesn’t the aquifer get replenished when it rains and when crops and parks and lawns and gardens so on are irrigated?
I would think–not saying that I am a hydrology expert or anything–that even if we take out a little more than gets put back from rainfall and irrigation, the deep aquifer would be practically infinite for our purposes, as long as the withdrawal each year was not a large percentage of the aquifer’s capacity and the replenishment in a typical year was close to the amount withdrawn.
The real problem with the deep aquifer–as I understand it–is with its quality in comparison with river water. That is, the aquifer water might not be good enough at the back end.
[i]. . . because there is a risk that you may end up saving even more money in the future as you proceed? [/i]
If the agency can proceed while reordering the process, by all means, proceed. But at this point the agency RFQ has produced three firms, of which one is a multi-national firm headquartered in France, and one is currently being investigated by the Justice Department ([url]http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/December/10-enrd-1409.html[/url]). Meaning the agency couldn’t find more than one qualified, non-indicted, domestic-based firm? At minimum the RFQ needs to be expanded to include at least five, for obvious reasons.
Repeating from above, if the agency can proceed under those conditions, then no halt is necessary.
@ Rich: some aquifers are basically fossil water and are being mined. Others recharge; some recharge slowly. I don’t know where the deep aquifers here fall on that spectrum.
To Rifkin re: Doesn’t the aquifer get replenished when it rains and when crops and parks and lawns and gardens so on are irrigated?
This is true to a degree. But the history of human use of groundwater is that they always take more than natural replishment can recharge so the water level always eventually drops. To what extent is a function of the types of soil, the amount of annual rainfall, the types of crops (if any) grown above it and how they are irrigated, how much municipalities and farmers pull out of the aquifer, and proximity of the aquifer to natural bodies of water that replenish it. We have not seen water levels drop to a great degree in our deep aquifers yet because we have not been drawing from them that long. But if Davis, Woodland, UC, and farmers all decide they need more groundwater and start pumping the deep aquifer like crazy, the water levels will fall as sure as the sun rises in the morning. The only question is when and how fast.
This is interesting information about the Conway. Just like much of the information that I have gathered through hard work and independent investigation over the years, it was brought forward from unnamed sources. I trust this information because I talked with Pam Nieberg who also spoke with the sources who revealed this information, and I trust Pam. In this field, you pretty much have to rely on unnamed sources, and decide whether you trust the investigator who spoke with them.
For those who have not been reading this blog regularly, (since I seem to be the only one making the case), I will explain that I think that Alan, like so many others, underestimates the devastating fiscal effect on ratepayers and ultimately on the city and school district budget of undertaking our surface water project at the same time that we undertake a new waste water project (and now looming storm sewer upgrades as well).
It is all a matter of timing. Alan is right that we should have undertaken a surface water project long ago. We should have participated in the Berryessa project in the 1970’s. But that is water under the bridge. There is no particular urgency to do this project now. The urgency is manufactured because the project has momentum.
When I first got on the council, we had a brand new waste water treatment plant, and it seemed to be the right time to proceed with a surface water project. I completely concurred.
But then, out of the blue, the state told us that our new wastewater treatment plant needed a redo. At that point, everything changed. Additionally, the major state and federal funding help we were told we could rely on dried up, and the economy collapsed.
We should be working earnestly with the water resources control board through their variance procedure to procure a postponement, so that we can try to pay off some or all of our waste water project before we proceed with the surface water project. That is the only way to significantly spread out the costs of all of our required projects; it is the only way this project will be fiscally feasible.
The arguments that it “will cost more to do this project later” are purely speculative, and ignore the fact that our new wastewater plant payments will end in a few decades. The surface water project could cost more to undertake at a later date, and it could cost less to undertake at a later date. We could be facing a sluggish twenty year economy, the way Japan did. That could keep costs low or even decrease them in the future, while making the fiscal hardship for the individual ratepayer and the city even more severe.
Phasing in the two (or three,counting new storm water treatment) projects is the way to keep costs manageable.
The “rate decrease” decrease that is being hyped is not real. It results mostly from changing the assumptions about costs. In fact, unnamed professionals that I have talked with (just like the unnamed professionals who told me correctly that we didn’t have to spend $200 million on a wastewater treatment plant and the unnamed sources who gave Alan Pryor this interesting information) predict that the project costs will be significantly higher than predicted, and we have also not yet accounted for the new storm sewer costs.
AP: [i]”But the history of human use of groundwater is that they always take more than natural replishment can recharge so the water level always eventually drops.”[/i]
I am sure you know 100 times what I know about this, so I believe you. But I am still confused by your answer. Unless the total amount of water is declining*, it seems to me over time the amount taken out has to equal the amount going back in. It is possible, I suppose, that the rate at which the water returns is so much slower than the rate it is taken out that the effect, in our timeline, makes it seem as if its replenishment rate is near zero and hence the aquifer can only last some short number of decades once we start drawing from it. If that is the case, then practically speaking, it is a finite resource. But impractically speaking–so to speak–it will fully replenish once the water we draw out is used and in whatever form makes its way back down into the underground channels.
*Water is, of course, H2O. So for it to decline in quantity, it would have to be transforming into something else or trapped in some other form, such as inside long-lived trees and plants or perhaps trapped in a cloudier atmosphere. No?
[i]”But if Davis, Woodland, UC, [b]and farmers[/b] all decide they need more groundwater and start pumping the deep aquifer like crazy, the water levels will fall as sure as the sun rises in the morning.”[/i]
I could be wrong on this–what I know comes from an agreement which was made more than 100 years ago–but my belief is that the water source for Yolo County farmers comes from Cache Creek, not wells. I also think that the water used by Solano County farmers comes from Lake Berryessa (Putah Creek).
I Googled “yolo county farmers water” and found the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District ([url]http://www.ycfcwcd.org/infrastructure.html[/url]) website. d. This is what it says about the source of water for Yolo County farmers:
[i]”Our Primary Source: Clear Lake – Yolo County’s primary source of agricultural water comes from 50 miles away in Lake County. The District obtained the rights to store water in Clear Lake in 1967 when it purchased the privately owned Clear Lake Water Company and the Cache Creek Dam. This gave the District the potential to release up to 150,000 acre-feet of water annually.
“However, the District’s water right to store water in Clear Lake and not provide enough water to supply farmers during dry years, therefore the District constructed the Indian Valley Dam and Reservoir in 1974-1975.
“Yolo County’s Life Line: Indian Valley Reservoir – With the completion of the Indian Valley Reservoir in 1975, the District’s water resources became less vulnerable to the dry years which often limit water supplies in Yolo County.
“The six-mile long, one-mile wide reservoir with a gross capacity of 300,600 acre feet, provides long-term irrigation storage. The District manages the water that the reservoir holds by releasing it as needed. The dam includes a hydroelectric plant. The cost of the dam and reservoir exceeded $9 million and were funded, in part by two bond issues that were retired on time leaving only a loan, originally scheduled to be retired in 2017. However, due to careful financial management, that loan was retired in 1998 making the project debt free.
“The total water supply available to the District water users include surface water from Clear Lake, Indian Valley and Cache Creek, and groundwater recharged by the District’s operations. In all, the District has surface water storage averaging, over a long term, nearly 200,000 acre-feet per year.”[/i]
One quick aside about the YCF&WCD:
If you are a property owner in Davis and you live outside the Davis Redevelopment Agency district, 0.6142% of your property taxes every year go to the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. In the 2010-11 fiscal year, that amounted to $290,302.41 from Davis taxpayers.
If you live in South Davis or the core area, which is the DRDA district, your property tax money which would otherwise go to the YCF&WCD goes instead to the Davis RDA.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1xSejjN2EnE/TmVCfqfNn0I/AAAAAAAAAfc/7jY8zgciqLM/s1600/lexicon+artist.bmp[/img]
If this and other exciting information about property taxes thrills you, then be sure to read my next Enterprise column, where I break down who gets your property tax money.
[quote]Combined with the $80,000,000 saved by not purchasing the senior summer water rights from Conaway Ranch IF the senior water rights license split is not granted, total project capital and operating costs could be easily reduced by well over $150,000,000 and probably much more.[/quote]Astonishingly, the $80 million Conway water purchase is not included in the capitol cost estimates of the project.
When this project goes through, our water fund alone will be almost as big as our general fund, according to our finance director. This is why we cannot afford to do it simultaneously with the new waste water and storm water projects.
Sue – By continually referring to “unnamed sources”, you make it sound as if the only way anyone gets information about the Water Project activities is if they have some “deep-throat” whispering to them in parking lots late at night. That is misleading. Every bit of information I reported in the article is publicly available simply by asking for it or grabbing it on the inernet as I did. All of the meetings at the JPA and Water Board have been publicly noticed for the whole world to see what was going on when and where. Even if you did not wish to go through that laborious exrcise, in your capacity as a Councilmember you could have talked with any number of JPA officials or their consultants and gotten the exact same information as I did. This process has been completely open and above-board and anyone who cares enough to do the research can become fully informed. Admitedly, it is a hugely comlex issue and required hours and hours on my part to sort though the information to try to figure it out. But there is nothing secretive or nefarious about the process of getting information. Nobody is withholding any information and the facts I reported on are publicly available to anybody.
Also, the $80,000,000 is not reported as a capial cost because it is not a capital cost…it is an operating cost and has been reported as such from the very beginning.
[quote]We should be working earnestly with the water resources control board through their variance procedure to procure a postponement, so that we can try to pay off some or all of our waste water project before we proceed with the surface water project.[/quote]
I think many of us non-experts would agree with Sue’s statement above, IF it is a realistic alternative. The problem is that we are also presented with information saying the city will be hit with huge fines if we don’t proceed with the surface water and will then have to pay the fines as will as the cost of the water. What is the truth? If the city can in fact negotiate a postponement with the water resources control board, why has that not happened? She assures us that high level politicians have assured here that a postponement is no problem and the city will not be fined as long as it is moving forward, or has plans to move forward in good faith. I have confidence in Sue–she has been the only council member right on the numbers many times in the past. My problem is that I don’t have faith in the people who have assured her. Do they have the authority to do what they promise? If so, will they still be in office when the time comes for them to make good on their pledge? In the absence of a signed agreement from the powers that be that Davis can put off the surface water project, I see no realistic alternative to moving forward with the project despite the cost.
To Rifkin – re “but my belief is that the water source for Yolo County farmers comes from Cache Creek, not wells.
You are right that most of the irrigation water in Yolo Co. does come from the District but more and more farmers are punching in wells as fast as they can either because they do not have access to the irrigations system’s distribution canals/pipelines or because they need more water than they can get in dry years. The rate of well water pumped and well drilling in the county closely follows weather patterns. During periods of dry weather (such as we just got through), lots of well water was pumped and new wells were drilled. I am guessing this wet winter probably saw a substantial drop-off in water pumped from wells and new well permits because surface water was going to be much more plentiful.
Sue – re: “We should be working earnestly with the water resources control board through their variance procedure to procure a postponement, so that we can try to pay off some or all of our waste water project before we proceed with the surface water project.”
The City has been working earnestly to get extensions on compliance with our discharge standards which has been giving us some breathing room and we managed to avoid fines for our wastewater exceedances (Woodland has not been so fortunate). But you need to understand that these wastewater limits are established by the US EPA and the Water Board is only the enforcement arm for ensuring compliance with these standards. They do not have arbitrary authority to change the standards themselves. All they can do is give us a little time to get into compliance.
Also, we have been granted free water rights for up to 45,000 acre-feet/year during non-Term 91 periods based on our representations to the Water Board that we have a plan to utilize this beginning in 2016. The Water Board has a statutory authority to rescind water rights if unused. In other words, you use it or lose it. I do not believe we would be able to retain these junior water rights if we renege on our promises to begin pumping in 2016 but instead told them, “we’ve thought this over…we really want to begin pumping 10 years later, if then”. If that were to happen we would likely never again get this opportunity and 20 years from now Davis residents would be complaining that we took a pass on surface water rights again. This project is afforable, it only brings our water prices almost exactly in line with state averages, and we owe it to future generations to step up to the plate now!
[quote] By continually referring to “unnamed sources”, you make it sound as if the only way anyone gets information about the Water Project activities is if they have some “deep-throat” whispering to them in parking lots late at night. Alan Pryor[/quote]Don’t you get it Alan? Your entire article is based on unnamed sources.
It was unnamed sources who gave me the information that led the the city saving $100 million on the waste water treatment plant. Unnamed sources have always played an important role in getting accurate information to the public.
[quote]The City has been working earnestly to get extensions on compliance with our discharge standards which has been giving us some breathing room and we managed to avoid fines for our wastewater exceedances…Alan Pryor[/quote]No Alan, the information you have given in the above post is incomplete. Take for example the ammonia limits the city signed off on. It was brought to my attention, and later to the attention of staff, [b] AFTER UNNAMED SOURCES INFORMED ME OF IT[/b] (and later by our University faculty consultants as well[b] WHO WERE HIRED BECAUSE OF INFORMATION GIVEN TO ME BY UNNAMED SOURCES[/b].)
In fact, there are many regulatory avenues that the city has not taken. First off, the city did all its negotiating based on the assumption of a surface water project, giving us less flexibility. Secondly, the city did not appeal or even sue, as other cities have done successfully. Finally, there is now a variance procedure in place. The city can make the case that the surface water project is now fiscally infeasible at the current time, and we need a postponement. We cannot guarantee success, but we have a decent chance. The decision lies the board members (not the administrators).
First of all, the surface water project is very arguably not fiscally infeasible. Tracy’s was. In my opinion (for what that is worth) the argument will be tenuous because we have a source of water and a plan in place. You’re essentially saying it is fiscally infeasible at this time, or may become fiscally infeasible. But Tracy had no other option except reverse osmosis.
Second, most of what you are proposing would delay the surface water project, not scuttle it. So you are proposing that the city ask for a variance, go to the deep-aquifer approach for ten, or twenty, or twenty-five years, depending on a lot of aspects of the deep aquifers that you don’t know about, and then have our kids pay for the surface water project. Assuming they haven’t somehow lost the water rights due to inaction.
You are also assuming that regulatory bodies will act in the best interests of Davis, where in fact their mandate overall is to act to enforce federal law. Some seem to think that federal law will change. I would not bet the future of the city’s water supply on that.
My concern is that all of this delay (or obstruction, depending on which opponents of the project prevail) could lead to a scenario where Davis has only fewer, costlier options; where increasingly stringent requirements lead to severe water restrictions in Davis (and our partners in Woodland, who would see their plans scuttled by Davis’ opposition), and these two communities would be rationing water while Sacramento, Vacaville, Fairfield, and other nearby communities have plenty.
Did you know that Lake Berryessa provides a six year buffer against drought? And that we could be using that high quality water right now if project opponents hadn’t prevailed in the early 1960’s? Let’s not make that same mistake again.
[b]Don Shor:[/b]Don, regarding intergenerational fairness, it works both ways. This is how I see it: It is not fair, or even feasible, for this generation (15 to 25 years) to pay for the new wastewater, surface water and coming storm water upgrades. We are paying for the wastewater plant now, and we are paying for the first stage of the surface water project, and will probably have to pay quite a lot for storm sewer upgrades.
When the next generation (in 15 to 25 years) starts paying the next phase of the surface water project, (they – along with some of us) should argue to postpone and phase-in any new mandates that might come down the pike, in order to assure intergenerational fairness for themselves. We are certainly doing more than our share now, by any calculation. The surface water project, like the Roman aqueducts, will be around for a long time, and we are paying for a good chunk of it now.
With regard to your other concerns, all I can say is that Davis water rights are secured as long as we work towards completing the project within 40 years, which we are already doing. I see no credible reason to argue that we will in any way limit future options, or that future costs will be higher if we postpone the project to make it more economically feasible. Future costs might be lower, and options tend to increase with time as technology advances. We will probably be able to secure a better price for our pipeline easements if we are not under a deadline.
In terms of plentiful supply, we will all be rationing because the water rates will be so high. But the rationing won’t lower our costs; we will need to ration just to avoid paying more than our share of the already extraordinarily high costs. Again, I have to emphasize that, if we so run into supply problems even in the face of the inevitable self-imposed rationing that will be occurring, everything is in place to finish the project quickly.
The indisputable fact that we should have participated in the Berryessa project in the 1960’s has no relevance to the current situation. We are proceeding with the Sacramento River project; the question is one of timing.
My only concern is the fiscal feasibility of proceeding with this project now. I can only repeat that fiscal factors can be considered by regulators when determining feasibility, and that, contrary to common perception, the regulators are supposed to take socio-economic impacts into account. There are regulatory avenues that we have not pursued, and we are not asking that any federal or state laws be broken or disregarded.
I was asked to post this…
Don’t miss chance for water
Yogi Berra said: “This is like dèjá vu all over again.”
In 1958, Davis and other entities in Yolo County were offered water rights as part of building the new Monticello Dam (Lake Berryessa). Most, including Davis, said no. Wisely, UC Davis accepted water rights for 4,000 acre-feet.
The decision not to accept the water rights was unfortunate. Solano County took the rest of the water rights and Putah Creek was left to suffer. Within a short period of time, the salmon were gone and the ecolgical enviornment was stressed.
During this same time, Los Angeles literally drained Mono Lake. A lawsuit (California Trout vs. SWRCB) resulted in a 1989 decision that “dam owners are obligated to maintain fisheries below the dam in good condition.” As a result of this legal decision, the two of us convened a meeting of the Putah Creek stakeholders that led to a successful lawsuit and ultimately led to an increased release of water into Putah Creek.
Within two years, salmon returned and the flora was flourishing again. The stakeholders (Yolo County, the cities and the university) regained some of the benefits that were lost in 1958. With the current application for Sacramento River water, filed in 1994, Davis once again has the opportunity to obtain supplemental water, which in this case will significantly improve the quality and sustainability of our drinking water. This application for water from the Sacramento River is our best chance, could be our last opportunity, and we can ill afford to fail.
Mark Twain said, “Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting over.” Let’s not make the same mistake that we did in 1958. We should work to bring the project in at the lowest possible cost, and spread the costs over an appropriate period of time downstream, so to speak. This opportunity is too important to lose.
Maynard Skinner
former mayor of Davis
Lois Wolk
former mayor of Davis and California state senator
Davis
I voted against this surface water project every single time when I was on the CC. Public Works has done nothing since installation of the individual meters to make a serious dent in Davis water consumption. Public Works has done nothing to reduce the use of water softeners in Davis. I have never seen any data that justifies the need for this project, whatever the cost. I do know that not one of the larger exterior sprawl projects lurking around the Davis planning department can be approved without a guaranteed source of water, hence the “need” for this project. If you look at the Yolo County map that highlights where the surface water will be used, you will see it being directed at a number of new urban development areas. All of the names of the “business leaders” who initially complained about the high cost of this water seem to have agreed with staff that the adjusted water rates are acceptable. EVERY ONE OF THE DISCLOSED NAMES IN THE DAVIS ENTERPRISE OWN LARGE PARCELS NEAR DAVIS THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED USING THE NEW SURFACE WATER. I think that Davis should live within its means, and learn to reduce its demand, fix the current well heads and other system components, and reduce the use of water softeners so the treatment plant outflow is less salty and comes closer to state standards. This surface water project should be voted down by the City Council. If they insist on going forward, then put the surface water project, and its costs, on the ballot for a citywide vote.
Total reliance on groundwater is risky and it is proving to be catastrophic in other communities. It will not happen overnight and we are really inflicting that risk on our children. Having followed water issues for 35 years I think we must take advantage of this opportunity and we need to do it now.
And, Michael, just for the record your CAPPED assertion that every one of the disclosed names owns large parcels near Davis while inflamatory is also wrong.
Alan’s original post is interesting and perhaps has merit. It’s hard to disagree that we should pursue the project while looking for ways to make it less expensive.
I’m not one of Sue’s unnamed experts, but I have spent a reasonable amount of time looking into CA water issues. I don’t think that a reasonable person can look at the facts and determine that a reasonably certain supply of high quality water won’t be much more valuable in the future than it is now. It is highly likely that the groundwater situation is only going to get worse, in terms of quality and quantity. The surface water situation is going to get much worse, and cities and farmers line up to “get some”. The price they will be willing to pay is going to go up substantially. Folks in SoCal would look at $260/ acre foot and salivate. I own a farm in San Diego county and we pay more than $1,000/acre foot for water. In NoCal, we’ve really just begun to see the tip of the iceberg for water costs.
This city is in the situation that it is because it delayed dealing with the situation years ago when it could have obtained Berryessa water. If we fail to learn from that mistake, we doom the next generations to much higher costs. What infrastructure project of this magnitude does anyone know of that gets less expensive when delayed? I appreciate Sue’s insistence that it can be done cheaper – I hope she is right, and we should follow up on lower cost opportunities, but not at the cost of delaying the project.
Thanks to Mr. Pryor for his in depth discussion.
Lois and Maynard deserve thanks for their historical perspective and desire for the community not to let history repeat itself.
Mike is correct in raising the issue of how development needs to have proven water rights even if he is wrong about certain facts.
Bob is correct that depending on ground water is a foolish strategy.
Where I think everyone is missing a big opportunity is the failure to calculate how much cost could be transfered from current residents to developers if they are allowed to buy the portion of this water they need to develop their properties.
It is odd that everyone seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room; the no growth people who don’t want to get taxpayers to start thinking about development as a way to save money, the developers who want to get the water on the cheap and the moderates who know we need the water but don’t want to open the can of worms adding development to the discussion will bring.
If my choice were to prevail we would auction some development rights and use the money to reduce the costs to existing water users. Its so obvious that its shocking that nobody is raising the issue but me.
[b]Toad[/b]:These water/wastewater infrastructure projects will make the city far less affordable for entry-level buyers. We would have to double or triple the size of the city to bring rates back to what they are today, assuming that we would even have that capacity or water rights with the new infrastructure.
A couple of new subdivisions would not make a dent in the rates.
Bob S: I am not wrong on those publicly disclosed names. And even if you say that one or two of them are not registered land owners in certain exterior areas, those parcels are controlled by all kinds of private partnerships whose members shift around.
Also, I am certain that the increase in value of the “targeted for development” lands will increase by billions if they have a guaranteed supply of potable water to make the EIRs pencil out. These billions of private money come from the City soaking all of its ratepayers to pay for the bump up in private value.
Davis needs to live within its fiscal and environmental means and borders, and it can do it if city leadership makes it happen.
When I was on the CC, I always knew that the cost of this surface water project would be its undoing, and finally maybe the day is here.
This project needs to go on a citywide ballot and let all voters decide.
Mr. Toad: one issue in modern planning is the idea that when a regualtory body does something that directly increases the private property values, the public should get some of that value. So if you upzone 1000 acres on the city border, making the land 10x more valuable, part of that value should be transferred to city coffers. Those land owners do not have a RIGHT to that upzone, so why shouldn’t the public get a piece of what their regulators gave to the private land owners? It’s obvious that the surface water facility is being used that way: it effectively “up zones” all private land that needs the urban level potable water for the land’s urban development EIR to pencil out. So your comments about the transfer of value are right on the money.
Again, the analogy to Berryessa isn’t valid. If the city had obtained 40 a 40 year permit to build infrastructure to use Berryessa water in the l960’s and then let it expire in the first decade of the 21st century after 40 years had elapsed, it would be an appropriate analogy. No one has any intention of letting the 40 year permit that we just received expire.
Sue Greenwald: [i]No one has any intention of letting the [b]40 year permit[/b] that we just received expire.[/i]
Exactly. From the SWRCB Decision 1650 granting the application:
[i]63. Construction work and completed application of the water to the authorized use shall be prosecuted with reasonable diligence and completed by [b]December 31, 2040[/b].[/i]
More information than most of want to wade through is available on the SWRCB’s website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/decisions/d1650_d1699/wrd1650.pdf
Thanks Mike.
Sue, I didn’t say we should build enough to absorb all the costs. Current citizens of Davis will enjoy better water and should pay for that benefit. What i am saying is that part of the cost should be passed to new development. I also dispute that it will raise the bar for entry into the market. Housing prices would actually drop if we increased supply. The cost of water hook ups in the $25,000/subdivided parcel range would only squeeze developer margins not price out new buyers. Use Conagra as an example and do the math you will see that if you build 1000 homes and charge $25,000 each that is $25 million from just one subdivision. It doesn’t pay the total cost but it does absorb a significant piece of it. Development margins are fantastic and yet nobody has asked what they would be willing to pay. It is a shocking oversight in the discussion.
Mr. Toad, I agree. It is odd in a way that is almost comedic. To Sue’s credit, she has on more than one occasion responded to the issue of having developers pay a hefty share of these projects, but she’s that it is just not possible. I don’t think she’s done all of her homework.
Sue is very good about checking in with local jurisdictions. I would suggest that she talk to the City of Roseville. Ask them how they paid for two wastewater treatment plant’s and how they’ve kept their fees low.
Secondly, Don is correct. This project can easily be argued to be economically feasible. If in 6 years out our fees are on the order of average relative to fees in the State, where’s the infeasibility?
[quote]It was unnamed sources who gave me the information that led the the city saving $100 million on the waste water treatment plant. Unnamed sources have always played an important role in getting accurate information to the public.[/quote]
How do we save the $100 million you keep touting when that savings was predicated upon having the surface water project in place first and foremost as a cleaner source of water? This according to the two UCD experts you yourself brought into the discussion…
[i]”Development margins are fantastic and yet nobody has asked what they would be willing to pay. It is a shocking oversight in the discussion.”[/i]
An interesting question: ask Bill Streng and John Whitcombe, “If we grant you full development rights to build housing on the Covell Village property, would you be willing in exchange to pay $100 million for the new water works?”
If they said yes, I wonder how many residents of Davis would agree to such a deal?
I am pretty sure that the poster who calls himself “Davisite2” would not.
[quote]How do we save the $100 million you keep touting when that savings was predicated upon having the surface water project in place first and foremost as a cleaner source of water? This according to the two UCD experts you yourself brought into the discussion…E. Roberts Musser[/quote]What a nasty and uninformed comment regarding an act that saved the city $100 million.
No waste water treatment plant could deal with the salinity issues — not even reverse osmosis.
“What a nasty and uninformed comment regarding an act that saved the city $100 million. “
For once I agree with you Sue!
Alan: Great article. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Could you please comment on the UCD deal? Is my reading of the documents correct – does UCD get to control 20% of the senior water rights in exchange for only 3.5% of the infrastructure costs? Will they be required to pay $16M for their 20% share of the $80M cost for the senior water rights? Are the Davis ratepayers getting a fair deal or are we being asked to subsidize UCD water? Where do you come down on the issue of UCD getting a no-cost risk-free option to buy in at a later date?
Since both Krovoza and the attorney Sue mentioned are conflicted, we have to rely on experts such as yourself to tell us whether or not the Davis rate payers are getting a good deal.
Thank you Alan Pryor. You are truly an asset to the community. I’m very impressed by this article and the issues raised. Better in the “11th hour” than never and yes, there is time to build a better project.
[quote]It was unnamed sources who gave me the information that led the the city saving $100 million on the waste water treatment plant. Unnamed sources have always played an important role in getting accurate information to the public.
How do we save the $100 million you keep touting when that savings was predicated upon having the surface water project in place first and foremost as a cleaner source of water? This according to the two UCD experts you yourself brought into the discussion…[/quote]
[quote]What a nasty and uninformed comment regarding an act that saved the city $millions.[/quote]
It was not meant to be “nasty”. I truly don’t understand your position. The two UCD experts stated that the surface water project needs to be done first and foremost, so that it will result in cost savings to the wastewater treatment plant. I have always commended you for insisting on bringing in those two experts – they brought a lot of clarity to the issue; and showed the city a way to save $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant. I have repeatedly given you credit for that $100 million savings in this blog and elsewhere as you yourself know.
But now you have been critical of the very experts you brought to the table, criticizing their credentials as somehow now lacking (Schroeder) when the one expert disagrees with your opinion – that the wastewater treatment plant should be built first and foremost and the surface water project should be delayed 25 years. As Matt Williams has suggested, why not delay the building of the wastewater treatment plant, until the salinity requirements are settled, and save that way as the two UCD experts suggested?
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how the city can save on the wastewater treatment plant if it is built first, with no cleaner Sacto River Water to obviate the need for the more expensive wastewater treatment plant. The two experts you yourself brought into the picture seem to agree w my and Matt Williams (and other commenters) line of thinking on this…