It was 3:20 in the morning when council slogged through a mass of compromise motions, but the basic effect was a doubling of the water rates. In the end, 4855 filed Prop 218 protests, with 185 of those not being fully validated.
It is interesting to note that council at one point had said they would re-examine things if there were a considerable number of protests. Some might note that those protest numbers reflect around a 70% approval rate. However, we would argue that, as a large number of people who did not vote either may not have been aware of the rate issue or did not know they could protest, the community was more likely equally split between people supporting and opposing the water rate increases.
We knew that the Prop 218 process was flawed from the start. The idea that only rate payers are impacted by rates is ludicrous. The idea that people who do not vote are still voters strikes at the very heart of what we consider the democratic process.
The voters could come forth with a referendum. Our sense, from watching the way the public broke, is that the business community was willing to accept the rate hikes at the proposed lower rate.
On Thursday, we will have a full analysis of the vote and what this means.
A long list of Davis residents came forward on both sides of the issue. Organized labor from both IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) and Operating Engineers came out arguing that this was a tough economic time, and that this project would mean hundreds of well-paying construction jobs to the county.
Nancy Conk, representing Sac-Yolo Mutual Housing, said that as a good environmental steward they not opposing the project, but the organization is concerned about the rate of the increase, particularly when you compare the rate of increases to the likely rent increases that these low-income housing units will be allowed to increase.
The typical permitted rent increase is about 3.5% or $29 per month. The proposed water rate hikes would be a disproportionate percentage of the rent increase.
John Munn from the Yolo Taxpayers Association argued against the project. He said that using surface water is not the concern of the Yolo Taxpayer Association. Their concern is the amount of the rate hikes. “The problem is that the proposed project is simply not affordable,” he told council.
Many residents and businesses would have to forego other needs to pay their water bill, he added. “Higher resident and agency payments are also likely to cause the city and the school system to also forego some of their needs.”
Alan Pryor argued that it was all about the water quality. He argued that the middle level aquifers are increasingly dangerous and undrinkable. “Conversely the deep level aquifers supplying our drinking water is a finite source just because continued hydrozle will invariably cause water levels to drop.”
He is unsure whether this would occur in five or twenty-five years, but he called it inevitable. He added, “The deep well has quality issues of its own. For one it contains hexavalent chromium, which is a proven human carcinogen.” No one knows the safe level for it and he suggested that the federal government was considering lowering the permissible levels which would render our deep level water unusable without expensive intervention.
He further argued that we are already under a five-year extension from the state water board for being out of compliance for selenium discharge. He argued, “Some have argued we can either sweet talk or litigate our way out of this problem, but that’s wishful thinking.” He added, “The citizens of Davis are very well off, I don’t think we’re going to get the economic hardship passed that some suggested.”
“This is not just an economic decision,” he continued, “We pride ourselves in Davis on our economic awareness -sometimes way too much in my opinion – given the lack of recent environmental initiatives in this city compared to more progressive cities. Nevertheless, for the city to continue to deliver well water to our citizens with these known contaminants in there and to discharge contaminated waste water into the wetlands under the guise of civic poverty completely flies in the face of the environmental ideals that we profess to adhere to and makes a mockery of the environmental face we show to the rest of the world.”
John Pamperin said, “I cannot look at this project separate from the school bond or those bond issues that the city has to pass.” He added that his background is economics, “And I know that $100 spent on this project, can’t be spent on education.”
There is no doubt that middle class people can’t support this, Mr. Pamperin explained and continued, “They certainly can’t afford a school bond, which they want to support and this is for the health of their family.”
“When you’re selling this to us,” he told the council, “remember you are selling it at the most difficult time in economic history of any of you.”
“I’m not sold that you can’t save more money on this,” Mr. Pamperin continued, “and I’m not sold that you’re translating to a community with other needs in the heart of a very serious recession.”
Ron Glick argued that the water is worth so much more money than what the city is being charged, they just have to sell it to the right people. He argued that we don’t need the amount of water we are buying in the summer, so where is the water going? He said no one wants to raise the issue of development because everyone is afraid of that word.
“This community is going to take that water and some day it is going to go to somebody who is owns a big parcel somewhere and they are going to subdivide, they are going to build houses and they are going to make a fortune,” he said. “And you can extract money from those people.”
He argued that the water in this town sucks, and that we need better water. “But,” he said, “to stick all of this cost on the current homeowners and let the developers who are eventually going to get this water and make a fortune get off scott-free – you guys are doing a huge disservice to the community, to the current people who live here, and you are letting these guys get away…”
“You have to make the people who are going to get the water, pay for the water, instead of sticking the bill on the people who live here now,” he concluded.
David Thompson pointed out that, proportionately, the owner of the large home on Oceano (an earlier item on the agenda, regarding a planning request) will have a smaller rate increase proportionately than the people at Rancho Yolo. “The poor always pay more,” he said. He is concerned that the rent at the mobile home park will increase, while the renters cannot even vote on the Prop 218 vote, because they do not own their land, only their homes.
The business community had, at one point, come out against the rate increase. However, with the reduction that has changed.
Dobi Fleeman, a Davis resident and business owner, participated in some of the citizen advisory discussions. “Irrespective of the outcome tonight, tonight’s meeting isn’t just about Proposition 218 and Davis’ water and sewer rates. More importantly it is about our community, our willingness and our commitment to support and sustain the community both tomorrow and into the future.”
“Our foremost responsibility must be our ability to afford that vision,” he added.
He acknowledged that the planning behind the Prop 218 rate rollout was “poorly conceived” and “utterly tone deaf, giving no consideration to the financial impacts on our residents, businesses, and property owners alike.”
“While affordability should be a foremost consideration, it should not be the overriding basis for rejecting either the process or the issues we face,” he added “I for one am convinced that the council and the city staff have gotten the message loud and clear.”
He called Prop 218 a “flawed process,” but he acknowledged the need for sustainable and longterm reliable water. He concluded, “Despite my tone deaf reference earlier, we are fortunate to have a council in place with the courage and vision to champion an unpopular issue.”
Christi Skibbins spoke on behalf of the Davis Chamber of Commerce, stating that they are “quite concerned about the implications on businesses should the original proposed water hike increases take place as envisioned. There are many Davis businesses that are truly not able to absorb these huge increases and not able to pass on the full cost of them to their clients.”
She thanked city staff for refining the original costs. “The revised rates that come before you tonight in the staff report are much lower than those published in the Prop 218 notice,” she said. “The Davis chamber of Commerce is not opposed to the project and we understand the need.”
She added, “We know that other councils have not operated in the city’s best interest concerning water in the past, and we are where we are tonight because of those decisions.” She urged the current council to put a stop to postponing this important decision.
Johannes Troost was speaking on his own behalf, but chairs the finance and budget commission. He asked the council if they could ask for regulatory relief, saying “we need more time” because that is the message he heard from the public, “we need more time.”
He suggested that if in just three months the council could find $17 worth of saving per month, he wonders what they could do in six months or a year.
He also asked council to keep looking at the financing of the project, arguing, “I don’t think the numbers are there.”
He made a good suggestion, “One of the things that the finance and budget commission has said in the past, is to look at all of the taxes and fees that we face as citizens of Davis, that we put it in one place” – park fees, half cent sales tax, water, and schools and “put it all on one sheet and let the citizens decide how they want to distribute their dollars. This project has to be weighed…”
Bill Kopper, former Mayor of Davis, speaking of seniors, said, “I can assure you, it’s an unfortunate fact, that many of those people cannot pay for this.” He added, “I’m as much for more jobs in building a project as the next person, I think it’s certainly a time now when we need more work. But, if our money goes into this, then teachers in our community are going to lose their jobs because the overrides will not pass where we need two-thirds of the vote.”
He also argued that interest rates for communities and municipal bonds are not low, they are higher than they were a few years ago.
No one knows how much water we really have, he added. “Everyone is speculating as to what may be there and what may not be there.” He argued for this not to occur now and to pay for the sewer first. He argued this project is extremely expensive and we are only guessing as to what we need.
Former Mayor Ken Wagstaff argued that the surface water issue should be deferred. He made the point that this is not really an issue of clean water. He pointed out that the Sacramento River water is itself “badly polluted. The treatment for that will be astronomical,” he added, “By the time we get it built and financed, we will probably find that it will cost us even more.”
“The guy who swam 111 miles down the rivers, but he had to have a special wet suit to protect himself from the awful nature of the water, kind of gives you the creeps,” he said, adding “That’s what we’re going to put in our system.”
In the end, the council voted for a more modest increase of 14 percent for each of the next five years, less than originally proposed, but well above a one-year five percent rate hike, with a study to try to get the costs down. The council would then need a separate Prop 218 for a sixth year, if necessary.
Sue Greenwald opposed the measure strongly, as she has opposed the measure for some time.
A number of citizens have threatened to mount a ballot initiative if the council approved the rate hikes. We shall see. The reduced rates perhaps took a lot of steam out of some of that opposition.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Yes it is excellent representative government in action. The vote happened late because everyone was respected and heard.
[quote]Yes it is excellent representative government in action. The vote happened late because everyone was respected and heard.[/quote]
Nicely said!
From an earlier post this morning on previous water article:
[quote]ERM, since when are you trusting of city finance predictions? You seem to have made a 180 degree turn when it comes to this project. Do you really believe it will now only double when they were throwing much higher figures at us all along? I think what we have here is just pass the project attitude and let the public deal with the much higher than anticipated costs later.[/quote]
I did not do a 180 degree turn when it comes to this project. I refused to come to a definite decision on the surface water project until very, very recently. I ultimately decided to recommend approval of the NEW REVISED water rate increases (in which they doubled as opposed to more than tripled) at the eleventh hour as more in line with what citizens can afford. I joined a group that approached the Dept. of Public Works. It was explained by our group that the steep rates in the Prop 218 notice were unsustainable by citizens and businesses alike. It was also explained we do not need to build a Taj Mahal type water/sewer project, just a bare bones one that will do the job. Ultimately the Dept. of Public Works finally seemed to hear what we were saying, and was willing to work at finding ways to reduce rate increases to a more sustainable level.
Last night, the City Council approved the surface water project on a 4-1 vote, but at the minimum water rate increase suggested by the staff report (14% each year over six years). A citizen group will be formed by the City Council (each Council member will choose 2 people to sit on this advisory committee) to keep a sharp eye on this project, to make sure it does not go over budget and result in unsustainable water rate increases. It is going to take constant citizen pressure to keep project costs in line. The idea was to let the contractor of this project/JPA know it has X amount of dollars to work with and no more – to live within a fixed budget.
I am actually glad that a great number of citizens have been engaged on this issue, have spoken out against the steep increases in the Prop 218 notice, but have also expressed a need for a more reliable source of water. No one seems to disagree with the need for the surface water project at some point in time. This issue is extremely complicated, difficult, costly. IMO, all because some idiot federal legislators/environmentalists pushed for unrealistic water quality standards back in 1972, but had no idea just how expensive the fiscal impacts of such draconian standards would be – and frankly didn’t care bc they would be out of office by the time the chickens came home to roost.
The fact of the matter is that the SWQRCB has emphatically stated it will not allow communities to fiscally benefit from inaction/noncompliance, and will impose fines accordingly. The SWQRCB also let it be known that it has little discretion when it comes to fines, as there are federal mandates in place on how/when/how much fines must be. I cannot conceive of the SWQRCB or the federal gov’t lowering water quality standards in the future. Instead, water quality standards are going to get more stringent as time goes on.
Secondly, if we had put off the surface water project for too long, there is no guarantee that our purchased water rights would be available in the future. With so many clamoring for water rights, the SWQRCB could have very well taken away our water rights if we slept on them for a long period of time. This is a new day and a new dawn, with a different mind set at the SWQRB and at the federal level. Thirdly, we don’t know how long our deep level aquifers will last/or be a source of unacceptable contamination. Subsidence is a very real problem for our wells.
If citizens wish to have a voter referendum on the surface water issue, to “undo” the approval, feel free to move forward with it. It is certainly the right of the citizenry in a democracy to do so. But I would strongly suggest that these same citizens have a back up plan in mind, if they succeed at voting down the surface water project. The fallout from a failure to move forward with the surface water project may not be to their liking or quite what they expected. I would hate to see us not move forward with the surface water project, then be fined whatever amount we thought we could save by not doing the project, so that we end up paying increased rates through fines, but have nothing to show for it – no new reliable source of water. Meanwhile our deep level aquifers may not pan out like this citizenry opposed to the surface water project had hoped, and suddenly we are faced with extreme water rationing. I repeat – WHAT IS THE BACK-UP PLAN if the surface water project is halted?
“The reduced rates perhaps took a lot of steam out of some of that opposition.”
I am ready to invest significant hours in a signature-gathering campaign. I hope that other members of the Measure X steering committee that have expressed opposition to the fast-tracking of this project will also join in this effort as their leadership and experience will be crucial for a successful campaign. As we learned when the former Council Majority(minus Sue Greenwald) attempted to fast-track the Covell Village project, a citizen referendum creates political space and time for the voters to be more fully informed and have a direct say in the future of their community.
“He pointed out that the Sacramento River water is itself “badly polluted.”
Sacramento river water is loaded with pharmaceuticals that are not removed in waste water treatment and are not monitored.
Mr. Toad, They may have been respected and heard, but the Prop 218 is a joke and the council was muddled and confused attempting to weigh through a complicated issue that late. What was the rush? Why not, hit pause after public comment and have a council-only discussion the next meeting?
“…the business community was willing to accept the rate hikes at the proposed lower rate.”
The business community has endorsed(here, there is grudging “acceptance”) EVERY growth-inducing project that has been put forward.
I talked to a lot of people in the business community and I don’t think any of them think this is a path to growth. Everyone told me they view the passage of Measure R as the initiative that took growth off the table. That’s why you see people who typically support growth and oppose growth on the same side on both sides of this issue. It simply was not a growth issue.
“It simply was not a growth issue.”
I disagree. Peripheral development growth, to any significant extent, can only occur with an additional water supply source that CA law requires be identified to approve future residential development. A Measure R vote to reject a future peripheral development will be under extreme pressure when the argument will be made that the voters’ unsustainable water bills will be lessened by adding many more new paying Davis customers to the revenue stream.
D2 “I am ready to invest significant hours in a signature-gathering campaign. I hope that other members of the Measure X steering committee that have expressed opposition to the fast-tracking of this project will also join in this effort as their leadership and experience will be crucial for a successful campaign.”
Funny how the same people who have fought development now complain that their water rates are too high. This situation is the result of generations of Davisites saying no. No to Berryessa then. No to Peripheral development now. Both decisions make water rates go up in the future.
Now it seems the siege mentality of the no growth faction is running up against the economic realities of their policies. The extra taxes Davis residents pay to maintain their quality of life are growing to the breaking point. Once the water deal with Conaway was set you were trapped by the cost of the new water. The only way to make the water project affordable is to allow new growth to help pay the freight.
By the way, did anyone else notice that Jerry Brown just signed a bill to allow Sacramento to sell its treated wastewater? Looks like a large part of the cost of the sewage treatment plant will be payed for be selling the processed water. If sac can do it why can’t Davis?
“That’s why you see people who typically support growth and oppose growth on the same side on both sides of this issue”
Wrong. The reasons are fiscal issues for those who usually support growth and environmental zealots who usually oppose growth but reject any moderate position that sullies Davis’ environmental “reputation”.
More correctly, the growth issue is not controlling for those who in this instance have “crossed to the other side”. This does not mean that the growth issue is not part of their deliberations.
D2: “A Measure R vote to reject a future peripheral development will be under extreme pressure when the argument will be made that the voters’ unsustainable water bills will be lessened by adding many more new paying Davis customers to the revenue stream. “
Exactly correct! This is why the no growth people don’t want to have the discussion about making the developers who will profit from this water absorb the costs. They would rather not have the growth nor the water. But you are beat. As soon as the water deal went down the costs became astronomical and the only way out is to allow growth to absorb the cost unless you want to depend on groundwater forever, something you may favor but many residents oppose.
Sorry I missed the meeting last night, but got a call just before 5 pm and had to help a friend with a medical emergency at a Sutter County hospital, returning early this am. Guess I should have known to come by CC Chambers even at that hour! Some things just never change. The CC should have taken a pause, and had a CC member discussion next meeting and a final vote.
Was there even a motion to put the rate issue on the city wide ballot?
David, it would help if you or someone could post the actual motions made; who made and seconded; and the votes.
Sue, thank you as always for your analysis and vote. I hope you run again; I’ll put your sign in front of my house.
“Once the water deal with Conaway was set you were trapped by the cost of the new water.”
Exactly my point, Mr. Toad. As a populist, I am very wary of plans that potentially TRAP voters when they are given the opportunity to directly control a decision.
EM: [i]It is going to take constant citizen pressure to keep project costs in line. The idea was to let the contractor of this project/JPA know it has X amount of dollars to work with and no more – to live within a fixed budget. [/i]
DBO by it’s very nature will not produce a ‘firm fixed price’ for the contract. And given the amount of pressure from a variety of interest groups – [i]especially[/i] the uneducated-to-process public – there is a very good chance the project will suffer cost overruns.
Get over it kids, you can whine all you want but at some point grown-ups need to make a decision and recognize that we need a better water source and there is a cost to that. If you can’t afford it, move someplace that you can afford the nasty water- there is a long line of people who can afford it who are happy to take your place.
[i]”Looks like a large part of the cost of the sewage treatment plant will be payed for be selling the processed water. If sac can do it why can’t Davis?”[/i]
This is an interesting idea. The only problem with the law that Gov. Brown signed yesterday is that it only applies to Sacramento. Maybe one of our two Davis residents in the legislature could work on getting a new bill which applies to Davis?
Thank you, Neutral: The DBO as a bad business model was my point, maybe badly made, when I addressed the council last night during the “one minute” group.
It’s a point that doesn’t get enough airing even in this blog. The idea that we should invest public money and then turn around and hand over the keys to a private company who will most assuredly extract profits is surely a source of cost savings.
I support the many benefits of this project and question the sanity of people who are against it ONLY because of the cost. That said I worry very much about the impact of the cost on certain sectors of our community. The Ranch Yolo presentations were very compelling. The impact on seniors and other with fixed incomes or those with household incomes less than $80K are significant and become critical as income declines.
I see the way forward not in undermining the project but really challenging the CC and staff to find ways to spread out the cost more equitably. There were many small suggestions that the naysayers would do well to list and publicize. If you want to have a positive impact on this debate, please incorporate funding, financing and cost saving strategies as part of your campaign. Just saying “no” and being successful leaves the entire community and our future in a deep hole.
DBO is a glaring example of something to hate about this project. There is plenty of pie to go around when and if this thing is built for engineering companies, construction trades, etc., but let’s not lock in private control into the future. Remember the PG&E vote to set up public power? Why do you think PG&E spent $15M against the small war chest put up by public power advocates? Because they know you and I are part of the great cash cow that gives a little milk everyday.
[i]”Sacramento river water is loaded with pharmaceuticals that are not removed in waste water treatment and are not monitored.”[/i]
Virtually the whole City of Sacramento currently uses Sacramento River water. Why are there no horror stories from their usage being passed around?
[i]”I disagree. Peripheral development growth, to any significant extent, can only occur with an additional water supply source that CA law requires be identified to approve future residential development. A Measure R vote to reject a future peripheral development will be under extreme pressure when the argument will be made that the voters’ unsustainable water bills will be lessened by adding many more new paying Davis customers to the revenue stream.”[/i]
I agree with David. Using water supply as a growth inhibitor seems misplaced. If the real issue is growth, there are plenty of more direct tools to keep growth in check.
Regarding the cost issue, I have a few questions for the posters here.
[i]1) Does anyone have a water softener, and if yes, can you share what your annual cost for chemicals is?
2) Has anyone had to replace plumbing fixtures in their house due to mineral buildup? My wife and I are currently facing approximately $3,000 in toilet replacement costs and another $2,000 in faucet replacements. The kitchen sink faucet we bought new three years ago is already showing mineral deposit damage. It doesn’t have to be replaced now, but will have to be in the future. As you can probably infer, we don’t have a water softener.[/i]
I bring these questions up, because anyone experiencing recurring costs like these won’t experience them if Sacramento River water replaces our current well water.
David, just like the Enterprise, you completely ignored the key point that I made last night.
There IS a process in place whereby the council could apply for regulatory relief. The council said that we had no choice but to move forward. I said that this was not true; there was a choice and that there is a process in place to apply for a variance for up to ten years while the state revamps its salinity management plan, which is quite likely to give cities in the basin some relief from the salinity limits.
I made a motion to pursue a variance under this new process, in order to give us regulatory flexibility. It didn’t even get a second.
So, the council is saying we have no choice, while willfully creating conditions under which we have no choice.
This was the main story last night, and I sure wish that you had reported it.
I agree with Sue regarding the pursuit of regulatory releif, but specifically for the wastewater treatment portion. Eliminating the well-water minerals as well as all the water softener chemicals is going to drastically change the incoming waste water at our treatment plant. It would be wise to defer that project until we [u]know[/u] what that impact will be, and engineer the waste water plant improvements accordingly.
“David, just like the Enterprise, you completely ignored the key point that I made last night.”
Sue, you didn’t read at the beginning that I was going to cover that tomorrow. You guys had a six hour meeting that ended two hours before publication and in case you missed it, we have a three day old baby. I couldn’t cover everything from the meeting given those parameters. So i covered public comment and I will have more tomorrow.
You guys should have ended the meeting at the public comment and come back next week to finish it off.
Sorry David, thanks. I agree with you completely about the timing. When I saw that this item was not first on the agenda, I was very unhappy. When I was mayor, I always insisted that big turn-out and high interest items be placed first.
Sue: Point of Clarification – What was said last night by the City’s outside counsel on wastewater permitting was that there is NOT currently a process for obtaining variances from discharge standards but that the Water Board is discussing a process whereby such variances MAY be applied for in the future. There is no guarantee that such a variance issuance process will be approved by the Water Board (although the lawyer for the city on wastewater discharge said she was hopeful). Further, even if the Water Board recommended that such a variance process be implemented, it still had to be approved by the EPA. She thought that the Water Board’s decision may be made in about 6 months. But then it goes to the EPA which can take years to approve such a modification. TOnly then if both the Water Board AND the EPA approve such a variance process then the City can apply for such a variance and be evaluated by the Water Board. This point in time is years in the future, if ever..
Even if this comes to passs, you seem to think that Davis can apply for such a variance because of economic hardship to the City. I doubt that will fly with the Water Board. Davis is far more well off economically than almost any other municipality or jurisdiction is the region so I doubt very much that this argument would resonate with them especially since they know we have a surface water solution and do not have to rely on RO to fix the problem. And the liklihood of obtaining a variance is small for known toxins such as selenium with have undisputed adverse environment health impacts (think of Kesterson Wildlife Refuge near Los Banos in the 1980s).
[quote]I agree with Sue regarding the pursuit of regulatory releif, but specifically for the wastewater treatment portion.—Matt Williams[/quote]I would agree with you completely, except that it doesn’t work that way.
Years ago, when I realized that the we had to pay for a new waste water treatment plant at the same time as the surface water project and the fiscal infeasibility of undertaking both simultaneously, my preference of course was to defer the waste water plant and undertake the surface water project.
But there was no way to defer the new waste water plant; the constituents in the waste water were not negotiable. However, there were other ways to help meet, negotiate and challenge the salinity requirements. The waste water plant could not be postponed, but the surface water project probably could have been — if the council took the appropriate actions.
In terms of appliances — I had to replace a lot of my appliances and faucets when I lived in Brookline MA with its river water. I haven’t noticed a huge difference (but surface water would make my laundry softer, although an occasional soaking in vinegar gets the calcium out of the towels).
[quote] Sue: Point of Clarification – What was said last night by the City’s outside counsel on wastewater permitting was that there is NOT currently a process for obtaining variances from discharge standards but that the Water Board is discussing a process whereby such variances [b]MAY [/b]be applied for in the future. — [b]Alan Pryor[/b][/quote]No, Alan, you are wrong. The state [i][b]IS IN FACT[/b][/i] setting up a variance process. She merely said it isn’t in place yet; they were wrapping up the scoping period.
Thanks Sue and David for being the rare voices of sense in this fiasco! Keep up the good fight!
Sue – The NPDES discharge standards are federally mandated under the Clean Water Act and the Water Board simply enforces them. The Water Board can give extensions (for up to two five-year periods) but ANY variances in the allowable discharge standards or process of obtaining individual variances MUST be approved by the EPA….period, no exceptions!
Alan, you speak with great authority as if you were an expert. Unfortunately, you don’t have all of the facts, and you don’t always listen too carefully.
The salinity discharge requirements in the basin are under review by the SWRCB. A variance process is being set up for the interim period. In other words, Alan, there is an anticipation that the allowable salinity discharge standards will change.
Sue – re:”In terms of appliances — I had to replace a lot of my appliances and faucets when I lived in Brookline MA with its river water.”.
The problem with many river waters that do not have appreciable minerals is that they are corrosive and that what was probably killing your appliances in MA – they plumbing, sela, etc were being eaten away by the corrosive water. Sac river water is not as bad as say, Hetch Hechy water in terms of corrosivity because it has a higher mnneral content.
The problems with most mineral-laden well waters, though, is that they are scale-forming – the calcium and magnesium carbonate precipiatets out on surface and starts to clog things up. But this is true only on the heated water side. Our well water is not scale-forming at 55 deg F but it is extremely scale-forming at 130 deg F once the well water is heated. The solution is to put the softener ONLY on the inlet to your hot water heater and 99% of your scale problems will be eliminated and you’ll reduce your salt consumption and discharge by 90%+. In fact, if you soften the cold water going into your house, it then becomes corrosive which could account for our high copper readings in our wastewater as I have previously written in a previous Vanguard article.
Whole house water softening is a bogus solution sold to us by Culligan who makes millions by our wasteful softening of cold water and dumping of 6,000,000 lbs per year of salt in our wastewater stream. Plus, most of Culligan softeners are run on timers instead of flow totalizers so many, many softeners in Davis regenerate and dump salt in the sewer even if not a drop of household water runs through them. Why would Culligan employ such a business practice – > to make money, of course. Culligan sells their service based on how much salt they deliver so they have a vested interest in every one of their customers using as much salt as possible. That is why when their softeners fail because of internal problems, they always replace the innards instead of the whole softener even though replacing the entire unit is almost always cheaper. But Calif State law requires all NEW installed softeners have totalizers rather than timers so new softeners would eat into their grossly inflated profit margins. Culligan is as much to blame for our salinity problems in our discharge as the minerals in the well water itself.
[i]”I would agree with you completely, except that it doesn’t work that way.”[/i]
Sue, I understand that it doesn’t work that way [u]now[/u]. However, I am [u]assuming[/u] that the new process you referred to in your posts above will/may change that. If it does, then the deferral of the wastewater could indeed happen.
Alan, one of the real possibilities that the City could argue with the State is that the chemical composition of the inflow into the treatment plant would be so changed from what it currently is that “wise” engineering/fiscal planning would justify granting a deferral until there actually are new inflows. That is a very different kind of “hardship” argument, but overengineering and overbuilding the project means wasteful spending of taxpayers’ scarce fiscal resources.
To Sue: “Alan, you speak with great authority as if you were an expert.”
Actually, Sue, I am somewhat of an expert. I have spent 25 years in water treatment commercializing environmentally benign water treatment alternatives and have participated in innumerable applications to Water Boards up and down the state in addition to vast international consulting experience. I have a BA in Biology, a BA in chemistry, and an MS in Environmental Health Sciences with an emphasis in Industrial Hygiene Engineering all from the University of California. I have published over 20 papers on water treatment technologies; many peer-reviewed. How about you?
@ alanpryor: On several occasions over the years I have been perplexed by chronic salt toxicity problems on customers’ plants (not the usual suspects, but common landscape plants), only to find that the household water softener has been plumbed into an outdoor faucet.
On a recent case my customer, who is elderly, told me (paraphrasing) that everyone told her she had to have a softener because Davis water would ruin her appliances within a couple of years. Her landscape problems began when her softener was installed, but it took many questions to get us to that answer.
[quote] I have a BA in Biology, a BA in chemistry, and an MS in Environmental Health Sciences with an emphasis in Industrial Hygiene Engineering all from the University of California. I have published over 20 papers on water treatment technologies; many peer-reviewed. How about you?-[b]–Alan Pryor[/b][/quote]I might not have a BA in Biology or a degree in Industrial Hygiene, but I have a huge advantage: I know that I am not an expert. So I contact a wide range of the top experts in the community, who fortunately also tend to be among the top experts in the state, and I ask a lot of questions and listen carefully to their answers. I try to find experts who are not employed by the city and I use my best personal judgement to try to find experts with no vested interest.
[quote]Sue, I understand that it doesn’t work that way now. However, I am assuming that the new process you referred to in your posts above will/may change that. If it does, then the deferral of the wastewater could indeed happen.—[b]Matt Williams[/b][/quote]Unfortunately, Matt, the variance process deals with salinity, which is the property that is attentuated by river water. We apparently need the new waste water treatment plant to deal with other constituents.
I would like to pay special attention to Dave Hart’s concerns. Dave says:[quote]I support the many benefits of this project and question the sanity of people who are against it ONLY because of the cost. That said I worry very much about the impact of the cost on certain sectors of our community. The Ranch Yolo presentations were very compelling. The impact on seniors and other with fixed incomes or those with household incomes less than $80K are significant and become critical as income declines.–[b]davehart[/b][/quote] Dave, I see a bit of a contradiction here. Let’s soberly examine the facts. According to current staff estimates, base rates for combined water/wastewater/garbage will be somewhere between $2,200 and $2,300 a year, regardless of whether we ramp up a little more slowly or rapidly. If we ramp up slowly, base rates will be higher in years 6-7. They will increase according to maintenance and operating costs thereafter.
This base costs do not include major storm water requirements that are currently being hammered out. We might have to actually collect and treat our storm water within the decade. The costs of this are impossible to estimate at this time.
A professional in the field with whom I recently spoke thinks that the city costs are underestimated. This expert thinks combined costs will ultimately come to between $3,600 and $4,200 a year assuming storm water upgrades.
Now, you question the “sanity” of people who oppose this project based “only” on these costs, yet you want us to do something to help those whose household income is “less than $80K”? The median household income in Davis is about $43K. With half of all households make below $43K, do you think we can give relief to everyone who makes less than $80K?
Actually, there is no feasible legal way to “spread the costs more evenly” at all. It is mandated that we charge according to usage without regard for income. Any subsidy would have to come from the general fund, and the money just isn’t there.
Ditto Gunrock. It has been a lively and interesting discussion. I have learned a lot. Thank you, Vanguard, for making this and other community discussions possible. Our elected representatives have spoken, and I for one support the decision. No, it isn’t democracy, and least direct democracy, but I think it is how a republic form of government should work. If sufficient people are dissatisfied, I am sure a referendum could be put forward, and probably will be. A good time was had by all, and now it is time to move on. (I love this town. I have never lived anywhere else where local issues are so passionately debated by people who are so well informed.)
[i]”Her landscape problems began when her softener was installed, but it took many questions to get us to that answer.”[/i]
Perhaps that writing on her roof should have clued you in, Don:
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/—61cWA4rgw/TmgIH5UZNXI/AAAAAAAAAfk/WVeco1HDSGo/s1600/bad+lawn.bmp[/img]
“Virtually the whole City of Sacramento currently uses Sacramento River water. Why are there no horror stories from their usage being passed around?”
The effects of pharmaceuticals and hormone disruptor chemicals can be insidious but very real;the point being that with regard to these pollutants, our well water is cleaner and healthier than Sacramento river water. My understanding is that these hormone pollutants are not routinely monitored. The US is way behind Europe in considering these chemicals, e.g. Europe bans the hormone disruptor bactericide that is the active ingredient in US bactericidal liquid soaps and some toothpastes. Our FDA is just now beginning to look into this issue.
[i]with regard to these pollutants, our well water is cleaner and healthier than Sacramento river water
[/i]
Please cite your evidence that our groundwater is free of these.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/science/earth/03water.html[/url]
“The pharmaceutical and personal care products, or P.P.C.P.’s, are being flushed into the nation’s rivers from sewage treatment plants or leaching into groundwater from septic systems. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, researchers have found these substances, called “emerging contaminants,” almost everywhere they have looked for them.”
[i]”The effects of pharmaceuticals and hormone disruptor chemicals can be insidious but very real.”[/i]
These chemicals are found in virtually every municipal water system in the United States. Only a few which have been tested have found no pharmaceutical residues. Even in deep aquifer wells, drug traces have been found.*
However, there is, so far, no strong evidence that there is any negative health consequence in drinking this “contaminated” water. The reality is that the concentrations of these chemicals is extremely diluted. It’s like all the people of California sharing one joint of marijuana. You think anyone gets high from 1/38 millionth of one gram? That’s the level of concentration in these drinking water systems.
*From USA Today (2008): “In the United States, the problem isn’t confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, source of 40% of the nation’s water supply.”
If anyone is interested in reading a good, scientific, unbiased primer on the topic of pharmaceuticals in the drinking supply, I recommend this 2008 paper ([url]http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/about/rapidresponse/download/Rapid_H2O_Final.pdf[/url]) from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. Yes, it is a little bit dated. But one of the things the paper notes is that a lot more needs to be studied on this topic, and I suspect most of that research has not been completed since 2008.
This sentence, I think, sums up the most important aspect of this topic: [quote] At current levels, pharmaceutical residues are unlikely to pose an immediate risk to human health, but the long-term consequences of individual chemicals, and combinations of chemicals, are unknown, especially as concentrations rise. [/quote]
Regarding pharmaceuticals: we asked about them when I was on the Natural Resources Commission and to my imperfect recollection we were told that because we were taking water upstream of the City of Sacramento discharges, concentrations would be small. Still, as noted above, we were told current water treatment facilities don’t remove what pharmaceuticals. Since we asked about this it should be addressed in the EIR. We also asked about pesticide concentrations and you’d have to review the answer in the EIR and judge for yourself. It was a lot less than an alternative surface water source we’d asked about. At this stage I’m more concerned about the chromium 6 in the groundwater but that’s not based on any health expertise.
I generally vote with Sue Greenwald on growth-related issues. But on this water-related issue I applaud the other 4 members for making sure we’ll have enough water in the future, when climate change could do anything to our water table. Plus I don’t like the salts we’re putting in the ground because we find our water too hard and soften it. It sucks that water is costly and will become costlier as we pollute more of it, but it’s a costly service I don’t vote to skimp on. When people can’t even afford water it’s time to revamp our social safety net or pass laws allowing low income water rates rather than to stop procuring sufficient water.
Adrienne, I support the project too. I just think that we have to postpone it until we pay off our all or most of our new waste water treatment plant. I think people don’t understand how far out of the ballpark our combined water/waste water bills are going to be, and the consequences this will have. Remember that our median household income is around $43,000 a year. A few decades is not very long, and phasing in the two projects could make the difference in terms of socio-economic impact.
[i]”Unfortunately, Matt, the variance process deals with salinity, which is the property that is attentuated by river water. We apparently need the new waste water treatment plant to deal with other constituents.”[/i] — Sue Greenwald
Sue, if in fact one the methods we are using to address the salinity is by replacing our water source, I would think that the State would be willing to grand a variance until the new stream comes on line and the new lavels of salinity can actually be measured. It certainly wouldn’t do any harm to begin a dialogue with the State on that.
Do you see such dialogue being something the new oversight committee should be involved in?
[i]Adrienne, I support the project too. [b]I just think that we have to postpone it until we pay off our all or most of our new waste water treatment plant.[/b] I think people don’t understand how far out of the ballpark our combined water/waste water bills are going to be, and the consequences this will have. Remember that our median household income is around $43,000 a year. A few decades is not very long, and phasing in the two projects could make the difference in terms of socio-economic impact. [/i] — Sue Greenwald
It bears repeating, your bolded words are upside down. In a practical world they should read, [b]I just think that we have to postpone new waste water treatment plant until we pay off our all or most of our new surface water project.[/b]
If we do the wastewater treatment plant first, we are at serious risk of over engineering and over building the plant, which will mean paying substantial millions of dollars for aspects of the plant that we don’t actually need. Changing our water source will produce massive reductions in salinity and other contaminants. Until we [u]know[/u] what those new levels are, we should be actively working with the State to ensure that the surface water plant comes before the wastewater treatment plant.
Sue: “I just think that we have to postpone it until we pay off our all or most of our new waste water treatment “
If not now, when? After you are kvetching at the daisies? That is like saying never. Can you do it with a straight face?
[b]Don and David,[/b] sorry, my comments were meant to be positive. I sincerely hope they didn’t offend in some way.
Don/David, ignore my comment about my comments. An error at my end….
[quote]”…You guys had a six hour meeting that ended two hours before publication and in case you missed it, we have a three day old baby. I couldn’t cover everything from the meeting given those parameters. So i covered public comment and I will have more tomorrow.”[/quote]Well, I certainly missed it. Haven’t seen anything here. And, since the [u]Enterprise[/u] hasn’t published very much in the last few days, I checked out “Judicial Watch” (one of your hangouts) without success.
Congratulations! Don’t forget to post a photo tomorrow.
[quote]If we do the wastewater treatment plant first, we are at serious risk of over engineering and over building the plant, which will mean paying substantial millions of dollars for aspects of the plant that we don’t actually need. Changing our water source will produce massive reductions in salinity and other contaminants. Until we know what those new levels are, we should be actively working with the State to ensure that the surface water plant comes before the wastewater treatment plant.[/quote]
Excellent point!
To dmg: Congrats on new baby!!! What a cutie!!!
[quote]If not now, when? After you are kvetching at the daisies? That is like saying never. Can you do it with a straight face?–[b]Toad[/b][/quote]
Toad, these statements are not discussion or debate; you are just name calling. Phasing in large projects is standard good practice. You have not backed up your statement that postponing the project until we have paid off some or all of our wastewater plant is “like saying never”.