Originally there were three partners in the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project (DWWSP), as UC Davis was an active participant in the plan to bring Sacramento River water to replace the reliance on groundwater by Davis, Woodland and UC Davis.
He told the board, “Since 1994, UC Davis has been an active participant in the project to develop a Sacramento River water supply for UC Davis and the cities of Davis and Woodland. Through a series of Memoranda of Understanding, UC Davis has shared in the costs of developing the proposed project, completing the Environmental Impact Report, and establishing the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency.”
It came as news to us that, “UC Davis and the WDCWA have developed an agreement and a water supply contract that would provide 2,000 acre-feet/year of treated surface water for on-campus domestic use.”
Based on this information, the Vanguard inquired as to the nature of UC Davis’ involvement with the water project.
According to UC Davis Spokesperson Andy Fell, UC Davis, as Mr. England stated, had been a participant in the water supply planning process since 1994, sharing costs at every stage in proportion to their expected water consumption.
Mr. Fell says this usage has varied over time, but he estimates it at about 3.5% of the total volume.
However, according to Mr. Fell, “The process reached the design stage at a time when UC Davis was having to make tough decisions about budget cuts.”
“We negotiated an agreement with the Joint Powers Authority that UC Davis would make a decision about whether to take water from the project in the future,” Mr. Fell told the Vanguard.
“If we choose to take water, we would retroactively pay our share of costs and also pay our proportional share of costs going forward,” he added. “Because the UC Davis water share is so small compared to the overall volume of water in the project, our participation does not affect the design or construction costs substantially, although if we were to participate it would help pay down the costs.”
An additional point also caught our attention. Mr. England wrote: “Groundwater hardness causes the UC Davis campus wastewater to be relatively high in salt. The Regional Water Quality Control Board issues NPDES [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] permits for the UC Davis wastewater treatment plant and is concerned that these salt levels may impact downstream agricultural users and municipal water suppliers.”
The result of that water quality situation was a fine issued to the university for violations of discharge requirements.
Mr. England reports, “In the most recent permit process, the University was given some time to address the issue, but obtaining new water supplies is the least-cost, best way to achieve compliance with the Regional Board’s water quality goals.”
Mr. Fell acknowledged that because the groundwater supply is relatively high in salt, UC Davis “triggered an automatic penalty from the California Water Quality Control Board for discharging salt into the creek in 2008.”
This made the news back in March of 2009.
“UC Davis will pay a mandatory penalty of $27,000 to the California Water Quality Control Board for violations of effluent limits at the campus’s wastewater treatment plant between April and December 2008,” UC Davis News Service reported at the time.
They went on to report that these violations were “non-serious violations,” triggered “automatically when effluent samples slightly exceeded the monthly limits for electrical conductivity set by the wastewater discharge permit then in force.”
They reported that the campus from 2000 until 2009 had spent around $23 million constructing and expanding the wastewater treatment plant.
They also reported that since Jan. 1, 2009, the campus has operated under a new wastewater discharge permit.
“We expect to be in full compliance with the new permit,” said David Phillips, director of utility services at the time.
We now know that the agreement was actually to give the university time to develop a new water supply project. While the university’s contribution to the WDCWA is small, they are basically using the process for a free ride for a time, allowing Davis and Woodland to expend huge resources that UCD cannot afford to expend on a water supply project and then, at the right moment, they will pay their way in.
In the meantime, the university has been instrumental in pushing this process forward. Not only did Mr. England argue on behalf of the project in front of the SWRCB, but they have supplied various experts and expertise to help move the project forward.
However, as Councilmember Sue Greenwald points out in her post, this is not a merely academic point (no pun intended). While the university may estimate their water contribution at 3.5% of the total project, it is actually a good amount more than that.
After all, the university accounts for some 35,000 students, in addition to faculty and staff who work in Davis, and many live in Davis.
As Sue Greenwald pointed out, “When I was first on the council over a decade ago, the University was pushing the project and was going to pay 20% of the cost. As time went on, they backed out of ‘the helping to pay’ part of the deal.”
Clearly, given their need to meet their own wastewater discharge requirements, they will come back, and at considerably less cost.
Sue Greenwald writes, “One could infer that they need the water but don’t want to pay for the infrastructure that the water requires.”
Indeed, it would appear one reason that the city is tripling its water rates is that UC Davis is no longer paying its agreed-to 20% share. Only later will it come back into the project, still getting its water, but paying far less for the infrastructure costs than originally promised.
Worse yet, the university has already announced plans to expand beyond West Village, and Chancellor Katehi has laid out an elaborate and ambitious plan for expansion.
UC Davis clearly will benefit by playing this game of opting out, and then coming back in after the major costs are borne by citizens of Davis and Woodland. And that will be to the detriment of Davis and Woodland residents, who will have to pay more, at least up front, than they should.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Mr. Fell says this usage has varied over time, but he estimates it at about 3.5% of the total volume.[/quote][quote]Indeed, it would appear one reason that the city is tripling its water rates is that UC Davis is no longer paying its agreed-to 20% share. Only later will it come back into the project, still getting its water, but paying far less for the infrastructure costs than originally promised.[/quote]Why the discrepancy between “share”?
In any case, it should be made clear to UCD that they will need to pay their “share” for project development, capital costs, etc., PLUS the interest for any financing, from the date the financing occurs, PLUS the “time value of money”, if any, by the time they want to draw water. If their share is 1 million in 2011 dollars, that needs to be increased by some index of inflation if they buy into the system later.
I am not following why UCD is being allowed to opt out/opt in at will, keeping their costs to an absolute minimum ostensibly at the expense of Davis and Woodland residents, while they continue to be seated on the JPA as if they had continuously opted in to pay their fair share of costs. The basic question I have is exactly how much of the surface water will UCD use, and are they going to be paying their proportional share? If they are only going to be using 3.5% of the surface water, then it would seem reasonable on the face that they pay 3.5% of the cost, or am I missing something here?
I agree with everything you state. In addition, we are paying their costs up front, so our rates will be reflective of the current estimates. We may pay lower rates later, but the initial rates are going to be what kills us.
Let me ask another question: Why did UCD originally agree to pay 20% towards the surface water project, and then decide to back out, then opted to come back in at say 3.5%? I’m just not following the reasoning here for the in and out business, and why the JPA is permitting this flop-flopping. Perhaps there are good reasons, but I certainly am not seeing it… especially when UCD is seated at the JPA as if they are paying a significant portion of the cost when clearly they are not.
Davis voters… political passivity and indifference always yield the same result… being “screwed” If your prop 18 protest letter has been misplaced, I imagine that you can go down to City Hall and get another to file right there with the city clerk before Sept 6.
“…am I missing something here?”
FIXED COSTS of infrastructure have nothing to do with usage, as we have learned with our own water metering program.
Simple solution, annex UC Davis.
Read this, particularly starting on page 7:
[url]http://envplan.ucdavis.edu/projects/documents/waterproject/uc-davis-water-project-noi.pdf[/url]
Going to the deeper aquifer, which is what UC Davis pumps from right now, will not solve the City of Davis discharge problem. What I have linked is a document showing how UC Davis plans to use a surface water supply to reduce the discharge problem. They are bringing in Solano Project water as a stopgap measure.
Let me repeat this: [b]going to the deeper aquifer will not bring the City of Davis into compliance with current or future regulations regarding salinity, as measured by EC. [/b]
Once again, how much will the fines be if Davis opted to go that route?
The fines are not specific to the infraction, they are calibrated to force compliance. Not complying, and simply paying the fines, is not an option. They will be increased as needed to bring about compliance.
Elaine and Sue have discussed this on other threads.
Here’s a link to the water agreement with UCD:
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/12-21-10_JPA_MTG-7b_UCD_Agrmtfinal_12-13-10.pdf[/url]
As far as I can tell, they have an option to purchase rights to 2,000 af of water for reimbursement of 3.5% of the project costs once the surface water system is built. I’m no expert, but this seems to shift all the risk to the Davis/Woodland rate payers. What consideration did UCD put on the table in exchange for this largess?
In addition, the numbers don’t add up. They are guaranteed up to 2,000 af and we have rights to up to 45,000 af. How do you justify sell 4.4% of the water for 3.5% of the cost? That’s a 20% discount.
And what happens if there’s a drought and we can’t draw our 45,000 af. Are UCD right’s prorated? On the surface it looks like they have a guaranteed allocation.
I wish a qualified attorney would weigh in because this doesn’t seem to pass the smell test. Am I correct? Did UCD get (1) a no-cost option, (2) a 20% discount on their water, and (3) a guaranteed allocation?
Re: “going to the deeper aquifer will not bring the City of Davis into compliance with current or future regulations regarding salinity, as measured by EC.”
That is true but only as long as we continue to also use intermediate aquifer water and allow softener brine discharge into our sewers. If we were ONLY on deep aquifer water and did NOT allow regeneration brine from softeners, we would meet our Total Dissolved Solids (as measured by electrical conductivity) discharge standards.
At the Davis water project Q&A session last December, the JPA’s GM was asked whether there might be any industrial applications for the City’s wastewater as it leaves the wastewater plant. He stated that the average effluent from the wastewater plant was 1,050 mg/l (ppm) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and that most industrial applications required a TDS less than 1,000 ppm. He further added that the Davis potable groundwater varied from 400 – 700 ppm TDS and that while most cities saw a 200-300 ppm increase in their wastewater discharge TDS as a result of citizen use of potable water, that Davis was seeing a TDS rise of from 500-600 ppm in the wastewater over and above the groundwater TDS. He attributed this high value to probable extensive softener use in Davis. He did not mention, though, the fact that the current effluent is also generally unusable for landscaping or agricultural purposes because of the high salt content.
The estimated value of 200-300 ppm salt added to our wastewater stream by softener use in the City was an interesting observation to me. This is because it very closely coincides with rough calculations I did estimating how much softener salt could potentially be saved from being dumped into the City’s waste water stream. For instance, I previously provided an estimate to Staff and the NRC that by simply eliminating softening of COLD water in homes and only allowing regeneration of softeners on only hot water based on totalizers rather than timers, as much 6.9 million pounds of salt could be so removed from the City’s waste water stream. And I indicated that this could be done while still providing the level of hot water scale protection needed to protect plumbing and hot water tanks from scaling. 6.9 million pounds per year in the average wastewater plant effluent of 7.5 mgd works out to about 300 ppm which is quite close to what the JPA GM stated was probably the salt loading due to softener use in Davis.
Many cities are now banning softener use because of the impact it has on wastewater quality. What is amazing to me is that there has been no quantitative analysis of this impact by the City which continues to insist that we have to import river water to meet our discharge standards. I have supported the water project from the beginning but only becuase I do not believe we can continue to rely on drilling deeper and deeper wells; one reason being that we probably will not be allowed to do so indefinately into the future. Continuing to insist we need to do this water project to meet wastewater salinity discharge standards is a red herring. The only discharge standard that we MAY be violating due to well water quality is for selenium which could be solved by judicious blending of well waters or RO of ONLY A SMALL PORTON of the water from suspect wells. Saying we have to completely RO all of our well water to come into discharge compliance as represented by Staff in the water project EIR is false and misleading and continuing to rely on that assertion strains the credibility of other arguments in support of the water project argument.
[i]”Simple solution, annex UC Davis.”[/i]
The Davis Planning Commission did that in 1978.
Could you elaborate?
“Simple solution, annex UC Davis. “
I don’t see how that’s a solution.
[i]”Could you elaborate?”[/i]
There was a strong desire among many people in Davis, starting around 1972, to enfranchise the students living on campus. In 1978, this “let all the studens vote” movement went to the DPC. The planning commissioners agreed with the idea and voted to annex all of UC Davis. After that, the measure went to the City Council, where it died for lack of support. That’s all I know.
[i]”I don’t see how that’s a solution.”[/i]
I don’t know if it is a solution to the problem you discuss in your column. However, if all of UCD were inside the city limits and the city council could impose its will on the University, then it seems to me that Mr. Toad’s proposal would work.
That said, I don’t know if the city really could impose its will in a case like this. I would think the University would still have the option of going its own route.
[i]That is true but only as long as we continue to also use intermediate aquifer water and allow softener brine discharge into our sewers. [/i]
I don’t think it has been proposed that we abandon all our intermediate wells, nor has it been proposed that softeners be banned (or plumbing to hot-only be mandated) throughout Davis. So I think your “only as long as we continue” would prevail.
But I might have missed those proposals in the various back-and-forth comments on this topic.
[quote]Going to the deeper aquifer, which is what UC Davis pumps from right now, will not solve the City of Davis discharge problem. — Don Shor[/quote]This is where the variance procedure and the changing salinity regulations come in.
To allow the University opt in “if and when” they need the water is surely giving them a huge break. The University has an enormous vested interest in trying to force us to quickly complete the surface water project. The reason for us to do the surface water project is for the insurance value — insurance in case we cannot negotiate more favorable permits in light of the changing regulations and insurance if the deep aquifer runs into problems. It is a very expensive — perhaps prohibitively expensive insurance policy which the University is getting for free.
The University’s interest and the city’s interest are hence not necessarily identical, and this is why I strongly objected to the fact that the Clean Water JPA hired a University attorney to represent the JPA in the Conway deal. IMHO, that attorney had a clear conflict of interest. If this project goes forward, the University gets a free insurance policy with a premium of well over $300 million.
Let’s try a thought experiment. What if we told the University to proceed with the surface water project with Woodland and we would only would only agree to pay for a percentage of the project according to our usage if and when we needed it? We could then proceed to pursue regulatory relief and undertake a better study of the deep water aquifer. This would be an ideal situation for us – total insurance and total freedom to wait and see whether we could postpone the project until such time as we pay off our new wastewater treatment plant and our coming storm sewer costs.
I think the city should amortize the cost of water on an acre-foot basis, then double that and sell it to UC Davis. Might as well make a profit on it.
Remind me: why would we be going to the deeper aquifer if the water doesn’t meet salinity standards?
[quote]… the Clean Water JPA hired a University attorney to represent the JPA in the Conway deal. IMHO, that attorney had a clear conflict of interest.[/quote]Sue: Thanks for educating those of us that are trying to get up to speed on this issue. Were Joe Krovoza and Steve Souza charged with representing the City of Davis on the JPA when this action was taken? Did either of them object?
Don: From Interim Public Works Director Bob Clarke:[quote]Does the project provide all Davis residents with river water?
It will provide river water to all of Davis’ customers almost all of the time. In the summer, during peak water use between 4:30 and 7:30 a.m., some of our deep wells will be used to meet demand. When the peak ends, the system will return to 100 percent river water within two to three hours.
Houses nearest the wells will receive more well water than surface water during peak times. Because [u][b]our deep well water has a similar hardness to river water[/u][/b], most people probably won’t notice a difference in taste.[/quote]I don’t understand your conclusion that surface water solves the problem and deep aquifer water doesn’t.
Read the link I provided above. UC Davis uses entirely deep wells. The document I provided shows how UC Davis is bringing in surface water to mitigate the salinity of their deep well water.
[url]http://envplan.ucdavis.edu/projects/documents/waterproject/uc-davis-water-project-noi.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9050[/url]
Campus to Pay Wastewater Penalty
March 17, 2009
UC Davis will pay a mandatory penalty of $27,000 to the California Water Quality Control Board for violations of effluent limits at the campus’s wastewater treatment plant between April and December 2008.
The violations, technically described as “non-serious violations,” were triggered automatically when effluent samples slightly exceeded the monthly limits for electrical conductivity set by the wastewater discharge permit then in force.
Campus officials said the problem was caused by salt in the water, and that investments in water and wastewater improvements should prevent the violations from recurring.
Most of the salt in the 2008 effluent originated as naturally occurring minerals dissolved in the groundwater that UC Davis uses as its water supply. A small amount came from the use of water softeners at the campus’s central steam plant.
Since 2000, the campus has spent a total of $23 million to construct and then expand the wastewater treatment plant. About $300,000 has been invested in testing and reducing salt discharges from the central steam plant.
Since Jan. 1, 2009, the campus has operated under a new wastewater discharge permit.
“We expect to be in full compliance with the new permit,” said David Phillips, director of utility services.
The university will ask the water board for approval to use the penalty monies for ongoing projects to improve Putah Creek, as allowed under state law.
[quote]Remind me: why would we be going to the deeper aquifer if the water doesn’t meet salinity standards?–Don Shore[/quote]Okay, Don. Remember when I wrote that our deep water aquifer overlaps with river water in terms of salinity?
We have to try to get a variance. The state is working on revising its salinity standards.
To reiterate the relevance of this issue to our current situation:
When I first was elected to the council 12 years ago, the city was planning to participate in the surface water project, but the University was going to pay for 20% of it, we did not have to rebuild our recently completed wastewater treatment plant which was only about 15 years old at the time, we were told that there would be state and federal grants available and the economy was thriving, and the country was just completing its longest period of sustained growth. Today, all of these factors have turned around and are working against us.
[i]Okay, Don. Remember when I wrote that our deep water aquifer overlaps with river water in terms of salinity? [/i]
Not to my knowledge. The deep aquifer has lower salinity than the intermediate, but not as low as the surface water. Note that UC Davis is paying fines due to the effluent discharge, using the deep water aquifer.
“The level of boron is about the same in both the intermediate and deep aquifers. But for other constituents, including hardness, nitrate and selenium, the deep water aquifer provides the highest quality of [i]groundwater[/i]. [i]These constituents are even lower in surface water.[/i]”
City of Davis/UC Davis Water Feasibility Study
Davis Natural Resources Commission Meeting
March 25, 2002 – Recap
The variance is your only hope if you want to stop or delay the water project. And to those who want to stop it: the variance only delays it.
Here are some examples of the differences between City of Davis water, UC Davis water, and Sacramento surface water:
Hardness:
Davis 303
UCD 123
Sacramento 57
Calcium
Davis 34
UCD 17
Sacramento 15
Magnesium
Davis 54
UCD 19
Sacramento 3.4
total dissolved solids
Davis 520
UCD 323
Sacramento 97
If Don’s numbers are accurate, then Bob Clarke’s statements re: the qualitative equivalence between river water and deep aquifer water (e.g. “our deep well water has a similar hardness to river water”) would be false and misleading.
Indeed, one could argue that this is misinformation being promoted by the city staff and our council representatives specifically to dupe those rate payers that will be asked to pay full freight for the surface water project but still receive substantial amounts of well water.
Those numbers are from City of Davis and City of Sacramento water quality reports. Bob Clarke’s statement was incorrect, except that he may be right that “people probably won’t notice a difference in taste.”
[quote]Read this, particularly starting on page 7:
http://envplan.ucdavis.edu/pro…ct-noi.pdf [/quote]
I only read the page you referred to, but what I got out of this is that UCD opted to purchase surface water from the Solano Project. Did I miss something?
I can’t resist making the following statement: The issue of who will ultimately get river water and who will get surface water is very murky!
[b]Don Shor:[/b] Your mistake is that you are not giving figures for our [b]DEEP[/b]aquifer wells.
Our deep aquifer wells have hardness levels that vary between 75 and 120 mg/l. That comes from our most recent water quality figures.
That is the number that is within the lower range of river water hardness, as presented by staff.
My figures were 2008 data from Davis and Sacramento, respectively, from city web sites. The hardness average is as I cited. UC Davis groundwater hardness ranged from 100 – 140, with an average of 123, as I cited. UC Davis uses only deep water aquifer groundwater for potable water, so they would have no reason to post hardness data for the intermediate aquifers. Water from the intermediate aquifers is used on campus only for landscape irrigation. City of Sacramento river water is 53, as I cited. Deep aquifer water is not comparable to surface water. If you have more current data than 2008, that would be of interest.
The City of Sacramento gets surface water from both the Sacramento and American Rivers. The City of West Sacramento gets its water exclusively from the Sacramento River above the confluence with the American, and therefore is a better comparison. West Sacramento’s water quality report states that for 2010, [i]maximum[/i] drinking water hardness was 56 ppm and total dissolved solids was 91 ppm.