The Vanguard has spent quite a bit of time sitting down with city staff and water consultants to understand this complex water project and the stakes.
One of the myths that we thought we had de-bunked already is that the city would lose its water rights should it not go forward with the water project.
Ken Landau, the Deputy Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, is often cited for providing the statement that the city could lose its water rights.
He said, “The State of California doesn’t have enough water to go around, and by law if a community is not diligently pursuing use of its water rights, the State Water Board can take those back.”
But the key word here is “can.”
Mr. Landau acknowledged, “That’s something that doesn’t happen very often, and certainly for communities where it’s recognized that, in most cases you get a water right for growth over the next several decades, so it wouldn’t make sense to take the water right back if you don’t use the water right away because you don’t have a need for it yet, but you need it for long-term growth.”
Mr. Landau did say, “If the City, this group, the cities decide ‘let’s delay this for 10 years,’ I’m not part of that decision making process, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if somebody went back to the State Board and said, ‘Excuse us, they’re not using the water. Can we have it?’ I don’t know the chances of the State Water Board actually doing that, you know, agreeing to that and taking it away. It does happen occasionally, usually under extreme circumstances. But again, looking at the risks that go along with delay, that would be one for you to think about.”
But even that statement came with the caveat that even when it does occur, it is “under extreme circumstances.”
Rich Rifkin, a columnist from the Davis Enterprise, this week confirms what we were led to believe, both by the comments of Ken Landau and from city staffers, that Davis is not in danger of losing its water rights any time soon should they not act immediately to exercise them.
As Rich Rifkin reports, he contacted the State Water Resources Control Board, Assistant Deputy Director James Kassel of the Division of Water Rights, to address his questions.
He notes that, since July 2008, there were 147 revocations, but only two were for cities – the city of Arcata in Humboldt County and the city of Plymouth in Amador County.
He writes, “In most cases of revocation, the rights holder requests that his license be revoked. The state water board complies and the rights are taken away. That is what took place in Plymouth in 2008 and in Arcata in 2009.”
“I did not find a case in the list of 147 in which a municipality held water rights, did not use them beneficially and the city’s rights were revoked,” Mr. Rifkin reports.
The Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency filed for a water right on April 19, 1994 and received it in April 2011.
Mr. Rifkin reports that Mr. Kassel told him: “A water right permit is an authorization to develop a water diversion and use project… The state water board considered the development period requested for the Davis-Woodland project during the water right hearing on permit issuance and determined that the development period was appropriate.”
He continued: “It is not unusual for project construction to be delayed for a period of time after permit issuance because permit holders require time to obtain permits from other entities, such as an Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit, a Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement, etc., prior to building their projects.”
The requirement is that construction work be completed by December 2040.
Concludes Mr. Rifkin, “Based on Kassel’s explanation, it seems unlikely to me that, if the voters of Davis reject the increase in our water rates, we would lose our share of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency’s water rights in the next 25 years.”
If this were Mythbusters, I believe we would have busted this myth already.
There are certainly other matters of concern that need to be addressed. As we mentioned yesterday, the Vanguard has met with staff members for a number of hours, going over information.
Based on these conversations, we have concluded that the city believes going forward with the water supply project is in the best long-term interest of the city. However, they also acknowledge short-term considerations make this a far less than black and white conclusion, as has been publicly acknowledged.
Bottom line, in a meeting with Interim Public Works Director Bob Clarke, Finance Director Paul Navazio and Chief Consultant Jim Yost, Mr. Clarke acknowledged that the city did not have to act now and not one person at that meeting disputed him.
We now have more confirmation that the yanking of the 40-year permit is unlikely to occur.
However, the issuance of fines and increased costs of the project definitely remain concerns.
As we have mentioned, Interim Public Works Director Bob Clarke told the Vanguard that, while he believes it unlikely that the city could get a variance simply by applying for it, the one way it could work would be if the voters voted down the rate hikes.
Mr. Clarke believes that the city’s groundwater system is ultimately unsustainable, but even he cannot say whether it will fail in two years from now or in 50 years.
We believe that there will be costs associated with not going forward at this time, however, those costs have to be mitigated against the economic impact of increasing water rates starting this year, with as high as 25% to even 50% increases.
Those who believe that mentioning the school parcel tax is pitting schools against water, seem not to recognize that, in fact, there is one pot of money and people are going to have to weigh what they consider their spending priorities to be.
For those who argue that we will burden our children in the future by forestalling this project fail to recognize that we are at the low ebb of public education funding, and that putting the parcel tax in jeopardy could put our children’s future in a much greater degree of risk at a much more vulnerable time in their lives.
In the end, like all other concerns, those concerns weigh against concerns about future costs being higher, and the possibility of fines. Unfortunately, people have tried to turn this into a black and white issue, where in reality there is a lot of uncertainty and no really good and clean solution.
In the end, I understand those whose inclination it is to try to bite the bullet now, but at the same time, I think that pushing the project off could provide us with new opportunities in the future. We shall see.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
Can you be more specific about what “new opportunities” you might envision being provided by delay on this project ?
” …fail to recognize that we are at the low ebb of public education funding”. I certainly hope that you are correct in this assessment that this is as bad as it gets, but see no evidence yet that conditions are likely to improve dramatically in the foreseeable future. Also, it is important that we keep in mind that not everyone’s children are on the same timeline. Mine are 22 and 19 so at present my personal focus is on higher education and job opportunities while still remaining cognizant of both the immediate and the long term needs for your little one’s including your beautiful recently adopted daughter! All else aside, my congratulations at this momentous time for your family!
“We now have more confirmation that the yanking of the 40 year permit is unlikely to occur.”
Sue has been saying that on here for weeks to anyone who cared to listen.
Medwoman:
Thank you, I never knew how much joy a little one would bring and I have always loved children. And I have always fought for education because of that love and passion. But you may be right, that things are going to continue to get worse, but I don’t want to live in that world and will do everything I can to make that not be in the case.
IN terms of new opportunities, that needs to be fleshed out, but my sense is that construction costs do not rise linearly, instead what we see are new technologies emerge to better enable us to perform the same tasks and innovation therefore has to be weighed against increased construction costs.
Rusty: Sue has been saying that for a few years and appears to be accurate.
“Rusty: Sue has been saying that for a few years and appears to be accurate.”
The attacks on Sue Greenwald’s credibility, suggesting that her unnamed experts are non-existent and that she has been making up the facts to support her position, have been unrelenting. As if her past public record (Covell Village Measure X) was not enough to confirm that she has been and remains the most knowledgeable and hard-working Council member now sitting on the CC dais, Rifkin’s fact-based article confirms her credibility when she speaks on the surface water issue.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”We now have more confirmation that the yanking of the 40 year permit is unlikely to occur.” [/i]
David, this will be my very first comment about possible risk of losing the permit, but each time I have read Sue’s well reasoned comments on this subject, I have had a little voice in the back of my brain whisper, “Historically what Sue is saying is correct, but given the significant escalation in California’s “water wars” is the future going to simply repeat the past?”
The bottom-line on that whisper is that we all can only make educated guesses about what the future will bring as water tactics (especially by Southern California jurisdictions) escalate. We simply don’t know what will happen.
Davisite,
The attacks on Sue from posters here have been relentless.
Sue was correct about the water rights and also correct that rates were going much higher than the 14% that was advertised.
So far: Sue 2
Opponents 0
Let’s see how the rest of this plays out.
Matt: That is fair enough.
Rusty, Sue is and has been absolutely wrong on selenium. She has consistently said we are in compliance, and we are not. When the fine level exception expires in 2015 and the SWRCB starts fining us real dollars for our selenium non-compliance, we will begin feeling selenium “pain” . . . in our pocketbooks.
So far:
Sue 2
Not Sue 1
With that said, Sue has done some serious legwork on this subject for years and she deserves credit for her dedication. We all have tunnel vision every now and then, and Sue’s “miss” on selenium is pretty easy to understand given her conflation of selenium and salinity. There is the possibility of a variance policy some time in the future (no policy exists now), but no such variance is even remotely likely for selenium.
“Sue has been saying that for a few years,” is exactly correct. Bold and cap it so you guys will remember next time.
Anymore more strawmen created by the City that we need to debunk? VOTER2012, ERM, Ryan, Don, anyone? Let’s take ’em one at a time.
It’s Halloween coming up, and let’s see if city water staff or you guys can scare us a little more?
Speaking of scare tactics and Halloween, remember Helen Thompson’s “boogeyman” letter she wrote on county stationary in October 2005 to scare us if Covell Village did not pass? By far the best political ad ever run in this town was done by Bill Ritter on the eve of Halloween and published as a full page ad in the Davis Enterprise. We call it the “boogeyman” ad, complete with colors and scary figures.
(David, can you scan it and post it for us to remind us of the history of scare tactics used by the wasters of tax dollars and growth mongers? It would be a great article, and include her letter image. It’s totally current today, given the tactics being used to scare the public.)
Seriously, obviously we are going to need some debunking ads during the campaign, and hopefully Bill or someone will put them together for the campaign.
Oh, and sorry, but DT Businessman is on the list.
On the subject of my comment above about possible risk of losing the permit, that will also be my last comment on that subject. I’ve always felt that was a very minor issue when compared to others.
Matt: actually, at the tables and knocking on doors for the signatures, the risk of losing the permit was viewed by far as the biggest public concern. The “use it or lose it” bogeyman scare tactic by staff and the CC over the past year reached a lot of people. Here’s to Rich, again, for showing us the truth!
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Anymore more strawmen created by the City that we need to debunk? VOTER2012, ERM, Ryan, Don, anyone? Let’s take ’em one at a time.”[/i]
ABSOLUTELY Mike, please weigh in on debunking any myth associated with selenium. The components of that myth are:
1) our out of compliance status vis-a-vis selenium
2) the impending 2015 fines from the SWRCB for our out of compliance
3) the fact that 12 of our intermediate aquifer wells currently have selenium levels that range between twice and 9-times the permit level of 4.4 µg/L.
4) the fact that those 12 wells represent 12,000 gallons per minute of water flow into our distribution system.
Michael Harrington said . . .
“Anymore more strawmen created by the City that we need to debunk? VOTER2012, ERM, Ryan, Don, anyone? Let’s take ’em one at a time.”
ABSOLUTELY Mike, please weigh in on debunking any myth associated with the fact that in order to drill any additional deep water aquifer wells the City must file an EIR, and when the last EIR was filed by the City in 2005, UC Davis filed a formal objection and forced the City to reduce its new well flow limit from 9,000 gallons per minute to 4,500 gallons per minute.
Why is that important? Simple, your preferred solution of using local groundwater has to deal with the selenium compliance issues outlined above, and if additional deep water aquifer wells are your preference, then we need 12,000 gallons per minute. UCD didn’t want 4,500, how are they going to react to 12,000?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: actually, at the tables and knocking on doors for the signatures, the risk of losing the permit was viewed by far as the biggest public concern. The “use it or lose it” bogeyman scare tactic by staff and the CC over the past year reached a lot of people. Here’s to Rich, again, for showing us the truth!”
[/i]
Mike, the fact that it got temporary traction didn’t make it a significant issue in the larger scheme of things. It did make for a good sound byte though. Your whole “local control” message makes for a good sound byte too, but it is equally insignificant in the big picture.
From Rifkin’s article:
[quote]The last question I asked had to do with money. Are there any cases where a water rights holder was allowed to retain his rights for an extended period of time because building a water project was too expensive?
Kassel responded, “The Division of Water Rights is not aware of any case meeting this criterion. Per Section 844 of the board’s regulations, lack of finances [b]will not generally be accepted as good cause for delay in developing a project.”[/b]
Based on Kassel’s explanation, it seems unlikely to me that, if the voters of Davis reject the increase in our water rates, we would lose our share of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency’s water rights in the next 25 years.[/quote]
I think Rich did not sufficiently address this last point that lack of finances will NOT be accepted as a good cause for delay? Apparently there is no precedence for this situation. So, how is it that ya’ll are jumping to conclusions that the risk of having our rights rescinded are gone?
“…for our selenium non-compliance, we will begin feeling selenium “pain” .
Of course, we do not really know what level of “pain” that could/would be. I seem to remember Sue Greenwald did address this issue with a plan(IF necessary) that would entail a combination of using more mid-level aquifer water for landscaping and other similar uses, to be replaced with more water drawn from the deep aquifer. I may be remembering incorrectly here and hope that Sue will clarify. This plan would not be forever but would allow us to POSTPONE and phase-in the surface water project.
“So, how is it that ya’ll are jumping to conclusions that the risk of having our rights rescinded are gone?”
The rare incidence in the past of it being revoked.
[url]”The Division of Water Rights is not aware of any case meeting this criterion.”[/url]
Davis, it has never happened before and it would not be accepted as a good cause for delay.
If our circumstances are unique, then you cannot put us in the “rare incidence” group. We would be a “unique incidence” and hence we would own risks for establishing new precedence.
Am I the only one that sees this flaw in the logic of the surface water project blockers?
“Davis” s/b “David”
Selenium, salinity, subsidence. None of them is a straw man.
Strawman arguments include things like:
Woodland’s financial condition.
Woodland “hiding its fiscal commitment from the voters.”
“If Woodland voters turn down their share, Davis will be stuck with all of it.”
“…the elitist dream town of 150,000 and for the upzoning of the land around Davis…”
“Those wells will “suddenly” be viable again…”
“…enriching the border land owners.”
“the City CC, staff, and others can be very punitive withough being overt about it.”
Unsubstantiated charges about blockers.
Sacramento water is polluted and regulations are “no doubt influenced by powerful lobbying of agricultural and landowner interests.” [davisite]
“the water interests are alrady spending to oppose the referendum via various hidden channels using community members…”
“Tskapolous will have his hand on the spigot…” [davisite]
“the ordinance probably violates Prop 218’s restriction to increases not greater than the actual cost of delivering the water.”
As you say, Michael, let’s take ’em one at a time.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Of course, we do not really know what level of “pain” that could/would be.”[/i]
Agreed d2. rest assured I’m going to do my best to find out what the SWRCB’s fine history has been for this. I really don’t know if the $3,000 to $6,000 per day number that has been bandied about apples to selenium. I will get back to everyone once I have independent information that I have vetted.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”I seem to remember Sue Greenwald did address this issue with a plan(IF necessary) that would entail a combination of using more mid-level aquifer water for landscaping and other similar uses, to be replaced with more water drawn from the deep aquifer.”[/i]
The capital costs of such a plan would be challenging at best. How do you (or Sue) propose to get dual supply to the points of use? Repipe the whole City? That’s a whole lot of piping. It makes a whole lot of sense in theory. It would support water reuse as well, but the “barriers to entry” may be too much to overcome.
As pointed out above, we need to do an EIR to draw more water from the deep aquifer.
To Davis Greenwald re: “…but my sense is that construction costs do not rise linearly, instead what we see are new technologies emerge to better enable us to perform the same tasks and innovation therefore has to be weighed against increased construction costs.”
On what basis do you make this statement about new technologies emerging? Have you talked with any water quality engineers who have suggested any new or evolving technologies to you that are even a twinkle in any one’s eye? Can you even explain what are the currently proposed components of the treatment system and how they work and what possible improvements could be made to them that could lower costs?
I was involved in large scale industrial, commercial, and municipal water and wastewater treatment for over 20 years. The technologies and tools used today for state-of-the art water treatment are exactly the same ones used 30 years ago. In the case of municipal water treatment, it is ozone and granular actvated carbon. The only thing that has changed is that the ozone equipment has become more durable and energy efficient but their costs have also gone up dramatically.
To bet our water future on your “sense” that “new technologies emerge” is a little like thinking that a real Santa Claus “may emerge” and show up in time for Christmas this year so you don’t have to spend money on your kids. Your kids would be sorely dissappointed this year just as our children will be sorely dissappointed in the future if we let this opportunity pass because there is a “sense” that some magical mystery technology may emerge that will save us money later!
I think you should stay clear of discussing the technical nuts and bolts side of this project and associated economics and stick to the regulatory and/or legal issues about which you are more knowledgable.
Speaking of which, I have a great legal question for you to chase down…what monetary and/or legal liability might the City have to the JPA and/or the City of Woodland and/or Conaway if we unilaterally pull out of the project?
Alan: What role if any does reverse osmosis play in wastewater treatment? I know it is the principal technology for desalination, AND I have an under-the-counter system in my kitchen for Davis water. And, I understand that the technology of the filters is advancing and amount of water needed to produce the final safe, potable water reduced.
Reverse osmosis was the only option available to Tracy to meet the salinity requirements, and the judge accepted their argument that it was too expensive. Or rather, the judge ruled that the cost to the city could be a consideration. That’s my recollection without looking up the case again.
nprice: right now your undercounter RO system puts all that its membrane rejects (the brine) back into the sewer system. A wastewater treatment plant needs to dispose of its brine somehow and somewhere. The closest place to dispose of a brine is the ocean. RO is not feasible.
BTW: your undercounter RO system is contributing to higher salinity and metals reaching the wastewater treatment plant. Do you also have a water softener? That would be a double wammy on the sewer system.
nprice: in full disclosure, I have an RO system under the kitchen sink too. Davis well water is crap.
BTW, the permit includes about 160,000 acre feet of water for ag use (if my memory is correct). We can always nurse it along and sell water to the farmers as needed to keep the permit alive, until or if, we need surface water for the city population.
Oooppppssss …. city didn’t tell you about that, did they, before they got you all riled up about “use it or lose it”?
The only comment that I’ve ever raised in this debate that can be remotely considered a “strawman” is that compounding interest will not result in increased project costs. Go ahead, Mike, take a wack at it. Debunk it.
The rest of my postings have been questions, comments regarding faulty reasoning, or highlighting “goofy” accusations/behaviour (which is ongoing by the way). I’m pretty comfortable with my postings to date.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
To nprice re” What role if any does reverse osmosis play in wastewater treatment”
There is no doubt that we could RO our wastewater stream and come into compliance with discharge standards. I seem to recall the capital costs alone for doing that for our entire wastewater stream would be on the order of $100,000,000. But that was to do 100% of the wastewater stream. We theoretically could do a partial sidestream and RO just enough of the wastewater to come into compliance, though. The downside to this, other than the enormous capital costs, are the VERY high pumping electrical costs costs if you want to do it in a water efficient manner (i.e. the most efficient RO memberanes run at pressures much higher than a typical home) and you still have to get rid of the reject brine. Since it will have high selenium in it, it will almost certainly have to be disposed of either on land as a hazardous waste or though piping into the ocean (no way will it ever be allowed to be dumped into the SF Bay). The nearest ocean pumping station is Oakland which has a pipline going out under the Golden Gate bridge. So all of the RO reject brine will have to be put into tanker trailers and hauled to Oakland – very, very expensive. Plus RO memberanses typically have to be replaced every couple of years. All in all, it is far more expensive on a net present value basis to RO our wastewater than bringing in the surface water. And cleaning up our wastewater, while certainly the responsible thing to do, only benefits downstream users while bring in surface water (which also solves our wastewater problem) actually brings benefits to Davis in terms of improved water quality.
And, yes, an under-sink RO system is an excellant way to improve mineral-laden Davis city water for drinking and cooking use. I do it myself. It is cost prohibitive to do it on a whole house basis, though. And no way could it ever be done on all of our well heads. That would cost in excess of $500,000,000 just in capital costs.
To Mike Harrington re: “the permit includes about 160,000 acre feet of water for ag use (if my memory is correct)”.
Seems your memory is slipping quite a bit. The JPA has the approved permits and gets 45,000 acre-ft of junior rights water in the winter which we get for free (not including treatment costs). But there is no way we could sell that to a farmer because farmers don’t irrigate in the winter (a little wrinkle in your scheme, heh?)
The JPA MAY also get 10,000 acre-feet of senior rights water, IF APPROVED BY THE WATER BOARD, for which we pay Conaway ranch over 22 years and then we get the water for free thereafter. There is not a chance in hell of us selling it to a farmer, though, because they could otherwise just drill their own wells and get groundwater at a fraction of the cost.
To add to Alan’s correction of Michael’s factual error: if we disband the JPA, as you have advocated, “we” couldn’t sell water “we” don’t have rights to anyway. The JPA has the water rights. Not the City of Davis. Hard to say what would happen to the whole permit process, to Woodland’s plans, and to any future water project of the City of Davis, if we followed the course of action you have proposed.
I won’t even bother to put the “160,000 acre-feet we could sell to farmers” in your growing list of distortions.
I don’t know what Mike Harrington is referring to when he declares that I engage in attacking a straw man on behalf of the City of Davis.
Def. Strawman: “A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions…Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated or over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s actual statement.”
We have yet to really hear Mike’s position. I don’t know what comments I have made that would be construed as a straw man. When I think about this, it seems to me that Mike Harrington is using this tool to attack those who either support the project or others who just want specific information for/against doing it.
Don: In the light of your comment today, please would you respond, as I have asked you to do before twice, as to what happens under the JPA if Woodland were to default on its payments? Why do you ignore this simple question when you know the JPA so well? The issue of whether this is a possibility is a separate one.
Also, in the light of what you have written today, what evidence can you provide that the Woodland CC has been very open with its public about the costs of the project and that the citizens are well informed??? As someone who worked as a volunter tabler and talked to several seemingly “news aware” Woodlanders I question your assessment. Is your evidence simply the bombastic statements of several Woodland CC members, if not not what is it?
I have answered you, Herman. The provisions are in the JPA agreement, which is online at their web site.
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/documents[/url]
Scroll down to the bottom. It’s a pdf. What you want begins on about page 23.
Woodland did a Prop 218 notification, just as Davis did.
[url]http://www.ci.woodland.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7043[/url]
I cannot answer your question about whether Woodland’s citizens are well informed.
So with regard to Michael Harrington’s distortions, the following are not true or irrelevant:
[i]”Woodland… has been hiding its fiscal commitment from the voters.”
[/i]They have followed all the rules about notifications, all the rate increases have been discussed in open sessions of the city council.
[i]Now it has morphed into a deal with just Woodland, and their finances are extremely shaky.
[/i]
It is funded by the ratepayers. Woodland’s budget, if it is indeed shaky at all, isn’t relevant.
[i]If Woodland voters turn down their share, Davis will be stuck with all of it.
[/i]
Utter nonsense.
I wonder if Woodland is going to try and bake a 20% conservation factor into their next 218 notice for the project if/when they send them out, especially after the fiasco we just went through.
Thanks for corroborating what I have been saying, David.
It is important that this discussion stay fact based.
alan pryor said . . .
[i]”There is no doubt that we could RO our wastewater stream and come into compliance with discharge standards. I seem to recall the capital costs alone for doing that for our entire wastewater stream would be on the order of $100,000,000.”[/i]
Alan, the independent information I have chased down regarding RO for our Wastewater Treatment Plant is that it would only add $50 million to the base plant upgrade that is currently mandated to achieve Tertiary Treatment by October 2017. So your $100 million figure is about double what I have been told for capital costs.
alan pryor said . . .
[i]”The downside to this, other than the enormous capital costs, are the VERY high pumping electrical costs costs if you want to do it in a water efficient manner (i.e. the most efficient RO memberanes run at pressures much higher than a typical home) and you still have to get rid of the reject brine. Since it will have high selenium in it, it will almost certainly have to be disposed of either on land as a hazardous waste or though piping into the ocean (no way will it ever be allowed to be dumped into the SF Bay). The nearest ocean pumping station is Oakland which has a pipeline going out under the Golden Gate bridge. So all of the RO reject brine will have to be put into tanker trailers and hauled to Oakland – very, very expensive. Plus RO membranes typically have to be replaced every couple of years. All in all, it is far more expensive on a net present value basis to RO our wastewater than bringing in the surface water. And cleaning up our wastewater, while certainly the responsible thing to do, only benefits downstream users while bring in surface water (which also solves our wastewater problem) actually brings benefits to Davis in terms of improved water quality.”[/i]
Everything I have learned through my independent research confirms what you have said above . . . the ongoing operational costs are the real challenge for RO. That, and the environmental impact risks associated with the brine disposal.
alan pryor said . . .
[i]”And, yes, an under-sink RO system is an excellant way to improve mineral-laden Davis city water for drinking and cooking use. I do it myself. It is cost prohibitive to do it on a whole house basis, though. And no way could it ever be done on all of our well heads. That would cost in excess of $500,000,000 just in capital costs.”[/i]
Again my independent research has come up with lower numbers than yours. A lot apparently depends on the valence of the ions of the constituents being removed at the well head. For the sake of broad brush stroke discussion, using the same $50 million capital costs figure may be okay at this juncture. However, all your operational issues and costs described above apply to well head treatment using RO, with one significant addition. Instead of a single brine collection site at the Wastewater Treatment Plant there will be upwards of 20 separate sites distributed around the city (at the existing wells) with toxic spill risks for each of those pickup sites, many of which are either in neighborhoods or adjacent to parks where children play.
Herman said . . .
[i]
“Also, in the light of what you have written today, what evidence can you provide that the Woodland CC has been very open with its public about the costs of the project and that the citizens are well informed??? As someone who worked as a volunter tabler and talked to several seemingly “news aware” Woodlanders I question your assessment. Is your evidence simply the bombastic statements of several Woodland CC members, if not not what is it?”[/i]
Herman, Woodland is conducting a water forum tonight. I have decided to be there. Will you?
I will take the time to do my best to (as a guest in their town) ask about your questions. I’ll report what I hear in the Vanguard tomorrow.
rusty49 said . . .
“I wonder if Woodland is going to try and bake a 20% conservation factor into their next 218 notice for the project if/when they send them out, especially after the fiasco we just went through.”
rusty, if they do, I sincerely hope they learn from the communication hiccups Davis experienced.
With that said, there is a way to structure the rates so that the conservation issue is significantly minimized. [b]I’m interested in everyone’s reaction to this.[/b]
First the City needs to determine the Fixed vs. Variable costs ratio of the water infrastructure (regardless of what water delivery option is chosen). Lets for the sake of this example assume that the costs are 60% Fixed and 40% Variable.
The rate structure I propose would be 1) a fixed base rate plus 2) a tiered consumption rate schedule.
— As level 2a) the first tier of the consumption rate schedule would be set to cover the usage thresholds from 0 to the amount of water a household of 2.5 residents would use inside a home with a moderate commitment to water conservation (low flow toilets installed, low flow shower heads installed, etc.) The reason I chose 2.5 residents is that I believe the average number of residents per household in Davis is 2.8.
— As level 2b) the second tier of the consumption rate schedule would be equal in size to the first tier, with the intention being that it addresses larger households with 2.5 to 5.0 residents.
— As level 2c) the third tier of the consumption rate schedule would be sized to provide enough irrigation water for a Davis residence that has done a moderate to good job of cutting back their water usage outside the house.
— As level 2d) the fourth and last tier of the consumption rate schedule would be to cover all those residences that irrigate in larger quantities than the upper threshold of the third tier.
Using our 60% Fixed and 40% Variable supposition, the sum of the fees generated by the base rate plus tier 2a) would equal the total 60% Fixed costs. The exact proportional split between those two is to be determined. Tier 2b)’s rate per ccf would be set at a value between 5% and 10% higher than tier 2a). That would mean families with more children would not be unduly penalized by the rate structure. Tier 2c)’s rate per ccf would be set at a value somewhat higher than tier 2b) because outdoor consumption of water is a bit more discretionary than indoor consumption of water, so there needs to be some incentive to conserve outdoors. Tier 2d)’s rate per ccf would jump up [u]substantially[/u] because it represents the most discretionary category of water consumption. The rate in tier 2d) would be set so that a substantial portion of the variable costs are covered by these fees. That means that if Davis conserves it will most immediately impact tier 2d) and the conservation effect on costs and the conservation effect on fees would move in lock step together.
[b]What does everyone think?[/b]
From [url]http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/california.html[/url]in regard to appropriative water rights:
[quote]Approval is granted upon finding that the transfer would not result in injury to any other water right and would not unreasonably affect fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial use.
An appropriative water right in California can be maintained only by continuous beneficial use, and can be lost by [u][i]five or more continuous years of non-use…[/i][/u]
In California, adjudication can be initiated through the court or through statutory procedures. Court initiated adjudication occurs when a water right lawsuit is filed in court (all surface and ground water rights may be included in this procedure). In the case of a court initiated adjudication, the court often asks the State Water Board to act a referee and to conduct an investigation and report back. Statutory adjudications result when one or more entities claim a right from a specific source and file a petition with the State Water Board. The statutory procedure can be used to determine all rights to any body of water including percolating groundwater. The result of a statutory adjudication is a decree that integrates all rights on the water source and sets quantity, season, priority, etc..
Ongoing Adjudications:
As of 2000, sixteen basins in California had been adjudicated.[/quote]
In light of everything I have read, including legal journals on the subject, water law in the state of CA is very much in flux, with new frontiers being rapidly forged on this front. There is an ongoing battle for water rights between Northern and Southern CA. Southern CA lacks water, and is keeping a close eye on appropriating water rights in Northern CA, such as the push for the peripheral canal around the Sacramento River. Southern CA, backed by Senator Darryl Steinberg, is in the ascendency at the moment.
I read carefully Rich Rifkin’s article, which I found thoughtful and informative. I do not necessarily come to the same conclusion Rich does, however, knowing what I know from a legal perspective – which is probably why Rich got the response he did from Downey Brand LLP (“a water right is forfeited if it is not used for five years”) – who are also well aware of the current legal terrain and what it is likely to be in the near future. He asked of the Asst. Deputy Director of the SWRCB if there have ever been cases where a water rights holder was allowed to retain rights for an extended period of time because building a water project was too expensive. The response was “The Division of Water Rights is not aware of any case meeting this criteria. Per Section 844 of the board’s regulations, lack of finances will not generally be accepted as good cause for delay in developing a project.”
Now let’s think about this from a logical point of view –
1) Woodland is already being fined for its failure to comply with water quality standards.
2) Davis trying to argue “economic infeasibility” is not likely to be considered good cause by the SWRCB according to the Asst Deputy Director.
3) Others, like Southern CA interests, will most likely be ready to swoop in and buy up water rights that are being slept on, assuming the SWRCB approves.
If Davis chooses not to come into compliance bc it does not feel like paying for the surface water project right now, even tho Woodland will “go it along”, how sympathetic do you think the SWRCB will be with Davis? The SWRCB will have essentially a taxpayer revolt on its hands, against coming into compliance with the new water quality standards. Somehow I cannot picture the SWRCB taking this “taxpayer revolt” lying down. Furthermore, fines are mandatory, not discretionary. Let us just say I wouldn’t want to bet the farm on Davis keeping water rights it is projecting to sleep on for 25 to 30 years.
Do I know for sure what will happen? Can I say what will probably happen? I don’t think anyone can say for sure, bc the water world is in the process of making drastic changes as a result of the new water quality standards. What has happened in the past is just not going to “hold water” for patterns of conduct in the future, since the “water landscape” is altering so dramatically over the next few years. To me, it just makes eminent sense to protect our water rights as vigorously as possible from encroachment. I think any water rights attorney would argue that position.
Furthermore, I cannot picture the SWRCB tolerating with equanimity a “taxpayer revolt” in regard to complying with the new water quality standards. I have no doubt fines will be in the offing. How high will be the million dollar question. I doubt if you asked the SWRCB what they will do, they could say with any certainty – SINCE NO SUCH CASE HAS EVER ARISEN BEFORE. But in light of the new water rights frontier, I would not want to hazard a guess… I’d rather be safe than sorry…
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Thanks for corroborating what I have been saying, David.
It is important that this discussion stay fact based.”[/i]
I agree Sue. You have consistently said that loss of the water rights was either a non-issue of a minor issue. There are much, much more important issues we need to wrestle with.
Speaking of important issues, you have yet to address in any substantive way my selenium questions to you. So you have easy access to them here they are again.
David, in my opinion the most serious challenge to the community falls on the wastewater side of the equation. Currently we have in our discharge permit Selenium limitations of 4.4 µg/L average month and 7.1 µg/L max day. We have an interim limit of 7.1 µg/L max day that is in effect until 2015. We are required to meet the 4.4 µg/L now, but until 2015 our fine level has been set at $0.00 for being over 4.4 µg/L. Additionally, in the wetlands we are required to monitor avian eggs and soils for selenium accumulation and must create a plan to reduce selenium if the geometric mean avian egg concentration exceeds 4.0 µg/L.
The above becomes particularly meaningful when you compare 4.4 µg/L to the selenium levels of our current wells as reported in the current Water Quality Report
Well#_ µg/L
11___ 34
7____ 27
23___ 27
19___ 19
EM3__ 19
15___ 11
22___ 11
26___ 11
21___ 10
33___ less than 10
1____ 9.4
24___ 8.6
14___ 4.4
27___ 4.1
25___ 3.5
20___ less than 2.2
32___ less than 2.0
30___ less than 2.0
28___ less than 2.0
31___ less than 2.0
Bottom-line, we are significantly out of compliance; however, the “pain” for being out of compliance is mitigated (until 2015) by our fine level exception of $0.00.
The five deep aquifer wells are in compliance, but that still leaves 12 intermediate aquifer wells with values that are between double and 9-times the 4.4 µg/L limit. The current fine level exception will go away in 2015, so we have to do something to address selenium.
There really are only two ways to address our selenium, 1) change our water sources, or 2) include an additional $50 million upgrade to our planned base level $100 million wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
We can change our water sources by one of three ways, A) provide well head treatment of our existing wells, B) go forward with the Surface water project, or C) replace all our high selenium intermediate aquifer wells with deep aquifer wells.
Option C) may not be available to us. If you read the 2005 EIR that granted Davis the right to drill its most recent two deep aquifer wells, UC Davis forced the City to eliminate two additional wells from the original request. Any new wells will require a new EIR and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that UCD will vigorously oppose any additional wells, much less wells that provide the capacity of the City’s 12 intermediate aquifer wells.
Option A) has its challenges and costs as well. Removing selenium at the well head will create a toxic “brine” that will need to be disposed of in an environmentally responsible way. As I understand it, the nearest disposal facility is in Oakland, which means lots of tank trucks every day (I don’t have an exact number) loading the toxic liquid and trucking it 90 miles down I-80 to Oakland where I believe it is pumped through a pipeline out into the Pacific Ocean. Each truckload will require a permit for transporting a toxic material.
So Sue, how do you propose we deal with our selenium challenge?
More from: [url]http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/12/02/18553428.php[/url]
[quote]State Board Revokes Auburn Dam’s Water Rights
by Dan Bacher
Anglers, conservationists, hikers, and recreational boaters who enjoy the American River above and below Folsom Dam are celebrating a huge milestone in the decades-long battle to stop the building of Auburn Dam.
The California State Water Resources Control Board on December 2 voted unanimously, 5-0, to revoke the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s water rights to build the controversial dam on the American River 35 miles northeast of Sacramento.
The landmark order cited California’s tough “use it or lose it” water rights policy, in which the Water Board noted that the Bureau failed to construct the project and apply water to beneficial use with due diligence as required by state law.
“This is a death certificate for the Bureau’s water rights for Auburn Dam,” said William Rukeyser, board spokesman. “The Bureau can apply for water rights in the future, but as with every application, there are no guarantees.”
[/quote]
Matt: the invited speaker list at the forum tonight in Woodland is all pro-water advocates. You’ve heard it all before. I’d go have an ice cream at the Farmers Market and have a nice evening.
Michael Harrington said . . .
“Matt: the invited speaker list at the forum tonight in Woodland is all pro-water advocates. You’ve heard it all before. I’d go have an ice cream at the Farmers Market and have a nice evening.”
The host of the forum, John Munn, is decidedly anti the rates, so I would expect a balanced evening.
BTW, you going to have the courage to answer my two straw men questions above?
Elaine, Thanks for sharing that. The surface water delayers/blockers seem to think they have satisfied the concern of risk that our water rights can be revoked. Even Rifkin seemed to gloss over facts in his own piece in the Enterprise that indicate that we are in uncharted territory where bad stuff might happen if we delay just because we don’t want to pay for it. It is like their logic wheel stops short of a full circle. Then again, maybe they only care about the facts that support their agenda.
Rifkin did lower my concern of revokation risk with his investigative reporting; however, he did not eliminate it. The risk is still there.
@[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b]Elaine, your example is irrelevant. It had to do with the building of a dam, not municipal water rights. Please go back and read Rich Rifkin’s article carefully.
If you want to believe our water rights would be jeopardized by postponing the project, no one can stop you. But it would be unprecedented.
Well, the Tracy decision was unprecedented, and so was the decision years ago protecting Mono Lake. But I think loss of water rights is far down the list of concerns compared to salinity, selenium, and subsidence, among others.
To Matt: here’s what I posted commenting on Bob’s column today.
If Dan Wolk believes he passed a 14% increase, he wasn’t reading the ordinance carefully. The majority voted to pass the staff recommendation. The minimum rate increase they could have passed, according to the staff report for the Sept. 6 meeting, was lower. I’ve attached a screen capture.
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/waterratesordinancesept6.png[/url]
A lower rate increase could be achieved, I believe, within the Prop. 218-noticed amounts. Just revisit the issue and direct staff to implement the Minimum Five-Year Rate Ordinance Option, instead of the Recommended option.
Given observed behavior of ratepayers, there will be less conservation at the lower rates. It still would yield less revenue for the water project in the five year period. So it will take city residents longer to pay off the project.
Sue:[i]”Elaine, your example is irrelevant.”[/i]
[i]”If you want to believe our water rights would be jeopardized by postponing the project, no one can stop you. But it would be unprecedented.”[/i]
Elaine’s post is very relevant since the water rights revocation for building the dam was unprecedented.
According to the SWRCB Asst Deputy Director over concern about lower income rate payers is not going to be viewed as good cause. And, there is no history of any other community delaying a water project for similar reasons. The easy conclusion to draw here is that revokation of our water rights is a risk.
Sue, you may feel comfortable hanging your hat on a peg made of hopeful expectations, but I think it is really bad city business.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]
“To Matt: here’s what I posted commenting on Bob’s column today.”[/i]
Thanks Don. Any thoughts on my proposed rate structure above?
[quote]@E. Roberts MusserElaine, your example is irrelevant. It had to do with the building of a dam, not municipal water rights. Please go back and read Rich Rifkin’s article carefully.
If you want to believe our water rights would be jeopardized by postponing the project, no one can stop you. But it would be unprecedented.[/quote]
Sue, you did not read my post carefully. The article about the Auburn Dam is damning, in that STATE water rights were taken away from the FEDERAL GOV’t! No less than the FEDERAL GOV’T! Also it should be noted from the article the notion of “tough CA water law”:
[quote]The landmark order cited California’s tough “use it or lose it” water rights policy, in which the Water Board noted that the Bureau failed to construct the project and apply water to beneficial use with due diligence as required by state law. [/quote]
The article is extremely apposite…
[quote]It is like their logic wheel stops short of a full circle. Then again, maybe they only care about the facts that support their agenda. [/quote]
Ya think?! LOL
[quote]Well, the Tracy decision was unprecedented, and so was the decision years ago protecting Mono Lake. But I think loss of water rights is far down the list of concerns compared to salinity, selenium, and subsidence, among others. [/quote]
I completely agree with you, but since the opposition to the surface water project is yet again dredging up (pardon the pun) another remote issue to attack proponents with, I felt it needed a response based in logic and reason…
“We simply don’t know what will happen.”
So… the argument now hangs its hat on “we don’t know what will happen”. A catastrophic event that contaminates the river water is another “we don’t know what will happen” fear-mongering narrative. As to unprecedented political decisions on water policy, I am confident that CA political forces will not let unprecedented water policy changes suddenly pull the fiscal rug out from under cities like Davis . Rather ,there will undoubtedly be time to both appeal the changes and be granted a meaningful period of time without penalty to meet these non-existent ,unprecedented new laws .
No davisite, the argument does not hang on that. As I’ve said above, there are much more important issues that will be “hat hangers” than the potential of losing the rights if we don’t go forward with the surface water project.
We truly do KNOW what the situation is with respect to those issues. Very little, if any, speculation in those cases. selenium, salinity, EIR requirements, brine disposal challenges and costs . . . all those are “hat hangers” IMHO.
@Matt Williams: [i]There really are only two ways to address our selenium, 1) change our water sources, or 2) include an additional $50 million upgrade to our planned base level $100 million wastewater treatment plant upgrade. [/i]
Actually there is a third method that has been utilized effectively with drainage water in the San Joaquin Valley – wastewater reuse. Selenium is an essential nutrient, one that is commonly added to livestock feed (selenium at higher concentrations is a toxicant especially in aquatic ecosystems). The Panoche Drainage District (just south of the old Kesterson Reservoir) has been reusing drainage water for years on salt tolerant crops that include alfalfa and Jose tall wheatgrass. They mow those forage crops, bale them and sell the bales to local feedlots. The quality of the drainage water used to irrigate these crops is approximately 3,500 mg/L total dissolved solids and over 200 ug/L selenium, which is significantly higher (I think) than anything that would come out of the Davis WWTP. I would think that cropland reuse of Davis WWTP effluent could be a cost effective method to reduce our effluent discharges of salt, boron and selenium. See the following URL for a list of plants that can be grown with high salinity and selenium in water: cit.cati.csufresno.edu/DrainageManual/Content/Chapter6.pdf
To eastdavis: Your question was addressed at the Wednesday night water forum in Woodland. They have looked at the issue of reuse of graywater, and found it to be prohibitively expensive bc of the cost of piping/transporting the water to its destination.
Also, the Woodland City Council members said they had had lengthy meetings with members of the SWRCB, and came away with the following:
1)They were told in no uncertain terms if they ceased to move forward with the surface water project, they would be subject to huge fines;
2) They can be fined every bit saved by delaying the surface water project, plus other exorbitant fines on top of that;
3) The ability to pay cannot be taken into account by law – Sacramento already tried and were denied by the SWRCB 5-0;
4) Loss of water rights was a real possibility if the project did not move forward, and those rights would be lost forever, forcing purchase on the open market, which is considerably more expensive.
The Woodland City Council felt it would be a dereliction of their duty to taxpayers to delay the surface water project bc costs will only increase over time – to wait was not a viable option.
eastdavis said . . .
[i]”Actually there is a third method that has been utilized effectively with drainage water in the San Joaquin Valley – wastewater reuse. Selenium is an essential nutrient, one that is commonly added to livestock feed (selenium at higher concentrations is a toxicant especially in aquatic ecosystems).”[/i]
eastdavis, I pursued the same alternative as pert of my research and found out that the City has already explored that option. They approached their neighbor, the Conaway Ranch to have Conaway use the water for its irrigation. Unfortunately the crop of choice makes a huge difference and the primary market for Conaway’s crop (rice) is Japan, and use of recycled water to irrigate rice is a disclosure item, and rice so irrigated is worth less than half on the Japanese market than rice irrigated with unrecycled water. The value loss in the crop exceeds the value of the recycled water.
Matt: thanks for comment on Japan and recycled water Interesting
Mike, I try and leave no stone unturned.
Speaking of unturned stones, are you going to answer either of the straw man questions I asked you earlier?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Anymore more strawmen created by the City that we need to debunk? VOTER2012, ERM, Ryan, Don, anyone? Let’s take ’em one at a time.”[/i]
ABSOLUTELY Mike, please weigh in on debunking any myth associated with selenium. The components of that myth are:
1) our out of compliance status vis-a-vis selenium
2) the impending 2015 fines from the SWRCB for our out of compliance
3) the fact that 12 of our intermediate aquifer wells currently have selenium levels that range between twice and 9-times the permit level of 4.4 µg/L.
4) the fact that those 12 wells represent 12,000 gallons per minute of water flow into our distribution system.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]
“Anymore more strawmen created by the City that we need to debunk? VOTER2012, ERM, Ryan, Don, anyone? Let’s take ’em one at a time.”[/i]
ABSOLUTELY Mike, please weigh in on debunking any myth associated with the fact that in order to drill any additional deep water aquifer wells the City must file an EIR, and when the last EIR was filed by the City in 2005, UC Davis filed a formal objection and forced the City to reduce its new well flow limit from 9,000 gallons per minute to 4,500 gallons per minute.
Why is that important? Simple, your preferred solution of using local groundwater has to deal with the selenium compliance issues outlined above, and if additional deep water aquifer wells are your preference, then we need 12,000 gallons per minute. UCD didn’t want 4,500, how are they going to react to 12,000?
Mike, just in case you had forgotten what the strawmen questions were, I reposted them for you above. Can’t wait to hear your answers.
[i]Mike, just in case you had forgotten what the strawmen questions were, I reposted them for you above. Can’t wait to hear your answers. [/i]
@Matt Williams – Mike has lots of time for rhetoric and histrionics, no time for substance because he isn’t paid to spend time engaging in topics that damage his client(s). I know you’re not cynical, but you’ll soon come to understand this conclusion – the force that is driving the referendum is not grass roots politics, love of Davis or even ego – it’s money that benefits from the project not being completed. Mike is their employee. He’s already admitted that Ernie Head is paying him. We’ll soon find out who else tells Mike what to say and do.
Dunning has a scathing article today about how he says the city deceived us about the water rates.
“Unfortunately, and there’s no other way to say this, the city’s statement on our taxpayer-supported official city website is a flat-out lie. And if you can’t trust the city on something as fundamental and simple to state as a water rate, whom can you trust?”
“I’d like especially to point out to those in charge that this is not just fun and games for many of us. Our water rates are not “incidentals” that have little or no impact on family budgets. To deceive us in such a manner on such a critical issue is nothing short of criminal.”
Who came up with this plan anyway? What individual, group or committee was responsible? Imo, whoever it was sure dropped the ball.
Talk about a PR nightmare.
[quote]Dunning has a scathing article today about how he says the city deceived us about the water rates. [/quote]
You mean how the Davis Enterprise deceived the public by failing to include the issue of 20% water conservation? Just bc Dunning is trying to deflect blame away from his own employer doesn’t make it true. The 20% water conservation was stated clearly by the city in its staff report and every public water forum the city put on I have been to.
ERM, according to Dunning the city’s own website states:
“And rather than argue about what was or wasn’t said at forums or whispered in the grocery store or written in unofficial spin-filled op-eds that may have been read by 5 percent of the population at best, much better to go to the official source for city of Davis facts and figures, the city’s own taxpayer-supported website.
So I’m there now, on the page labeled “Public Works Department,” ready to get the straight scoop about just how honest and up-front the city is being with its own citizens.
And there, under the heading “Utility Rate Increases,” and the sub-head “Water” and the further sub-head “Water Rate Ordinance as Adopted September 6, 2011,” I have picked up some valuable information.
Unfortunately for the mayor and his colleagues and all those city staffers parroting the party line, what I learned does not support the contention that the city has been straight with us about the 20 percent conservation element it claims is baked into the new rates. Tellingly, here’s what the city’s own website has to say about the water rate ordinance passed Sept. 6.
“The Davis City Council approved maximum water rate increases of 14 percent each year, for five years, for the typical single-family residential customer.”
Note that unmitigated word “maximum.” We can define it in the interest of clarity if you wish, but I think we all know what it means.
“Individual charges will vary depending on actual water use,” the city goes on, which seems obvious, but in any regard we have been assured by the city that the “maximum rate increase” will not go up by more than 14 percent, no matter how much water we use or don’t use.
Nowhere under “Utility Rate Increases” does the city even hint about 20 percent conservation being assumed in order to achieve that fictional 14 percent figure. It’s simply not mentioned.”
“Just bc Dunning is trying to deflect blame away from his own employer doesn’t make it true. The 20% water conservation was stated clearly by the city in its staff report and every public water forum the city put on I have been to. “
So clearly stated that it appears that one of the councilmembers had idea it was there.
ERM states:
“You mean how the Davis Enterprise deceived the public by failing to include the issue of 20% water conservation? Just bc Dunning is trying to deflect blame away from his own employer doesn’t make it true.”
You also forgot Dan Wolk’s op-ed, and his subsequent reply to Dunning,
“Councilman Dan Wolk responded to my question by saying “The motion I voted for calls for maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year. Your math (which looks right to me) shows that is not necessarily the case for some”, was that the Enterprise’s fault too?
[quote]So clearly stated that it appears that one of the councilmembers had idea it was there.[/quote]
That councilmember didn’t read the staff report carefully, bc it was in the staff report as clear as day. Had he gone to any of the water forums, it would have also been stated clearly.
True. But if a councilmember didn’t pick it up, why would we expect the public to?
Exactly David, and that councilmember is a water attorney.
[quote]True. But if a councilmember didn’t pick it up, why would we expect the public to?[/quote]
Because both the council member and public have to be expected to READ. Simple…
To me, this issue is a red herring. There are certainly many issues of far more importance – for instance the companies with spotty records; the affordability of the water rate increases and how we can tweak the rate structure to accommodate that; a back-up plan if the surface water project is voted down, etc. Yet there is this constant carping by opponents on any miniscule issue – who was at fault in the Davis Enterprise’s failure to put the 20% conservation rate in their article – to defeat the surface water project at all costs. Neither of you was at last night’s water forum – it made for a very sobering discussion…
Adam Smith wrote: “Mike is their employee. He’s already admitted that Ernie Head is paying him. We’ll soon find out who else tells Mike what to say and do.”
Hey Ernie: they say you are paying me! Better get your checkbook out!
Adam: your posting was just more late night Internet drivel? Attack the messenger? Is Ernie paying Bob Dunning too?
This is what was given to the council by staff:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/waterratesordinancesept6.png[/img]
Had they gone with the bottom recommendation, all would be well.
Someone is bankrolling the referendum. The expense for paid signature gatherers was around $10,000. I suspect that Mike Harrington has been paid to manage the campaign.
“The expense for paid signature gatherers was around $10,000.”
How do you know this? If the paid signature gatherers were paid $1.75 and brought in 3000 signatures, perhaps a high number, the cost is less than $5000.
I suspect that Mike Harrington received tons of donations from unsuspecting ratepayers who were “surprised” by the rate fiasco.
How do you like them apples?
They collected 5,124 total and paid $1.75 per signature. Are you saying that the paid signature gathers only collected around 3000 of them? If so, the owner of the company stated that there were 13 paid gatherers who put in 300 hours. It is not clear if the administrative costs are taken out of the $1.75 or there are overhead costs in addition to this. So, Mike, who paid for the referendum campaign?
That’s my guess.
My other guess is that Harrington and Head paid for most of it.
“Those who believe that mentioning the school parcel tax is pitting schools against water, seem not to recognize that, in fact, there is one pot of money and people are going to have to weigh what they consider their spending priorities to be.” David Greenwald
And those that attempt to sidestep this issue with this sort of patronizing and dismissive statement seem not to realize that their manipulative rhetoric will have a tangible effect on how people weight their spending priorities.
@ Michael Harrington: “… hopefully Bill or someone will put them together for the campaign.”
It’s interesting that Michael would mention Bill Ritter in the context of this issue.
[i]Adam: your posting was just more late night Internet drivel? Attack the messenger? Is Ernie paying Bob Dunning too? [/i]
Mike – I stay focused on facts and substance. Here are you own words regarding Ernie Head, taken from a comment you posted on the Davis Enterprise on Sept 15, 2011.
“Hi Rich, you do post around town! Since it is public information, at this time I do proudly support Ernie Head as his attorney in trying to get information from the City of Davis as to the protest forms for the near tripiling of the water rates to pay for the surface water project. We are jointly working together on a referendum to ensure that Davis voters have the opportunity to vote in June 2012 on that huge rate increase. If you want more information or to volunteer to collect signatures in the next 30 days, call Ernie at 753-3640 or Pam Nieberg at 756-6856.”
So which is it – did you mislead us earlier tonight or in the Enterprise. Hard to keep up with it all, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, you don’t provides facts or information that is helpful with a rational analysis, and therefore, I, and others who are interested in facts and reason, will continue to shine a light on purveyors of histrionics, misleading statements and falsehoods, and we’ll continue to ask for proof of your assertions. Hopefully, you’ll be much better in the future with substantiating the information in your posts and public statements.
Perhaps you can help me with a story that was relayed to me the other day. I understand that Ernie Head has sold water well sites to the city? It couldn’t be that he has other well sites to sell them, could it?
I wonder if the value of those prospective well site would decrease if the surface water project passed?
“Ernie Head has sold water well sites to the city.”
Adam Smith: Can you elaborate?
Also, I disagree with your assertion that Michael’s activities are driven purely by financial conflicts of interest. In my opinion – ego, a need to be politically relevant, and an agenda to manipulate the 2012 election are a big part of the equation.
[i]My other guess is that Harrington and Head paid for most of it.
[/i]
Maybe you should just ask them.
@DT Businessman (09/15/11 – 11:52 PM)[quote]I’m told Ernie Head sold the City a parcel of land, so that they could drill….a water well. Ernie sued the City as part of the transaction and won a significant award. Ernie is now spearheading a referendum. Somebody fill in the details for me. What I was told could all be malicious gossip. But then again, this is a blog and any number of other Vanguardians have been pretty loosey goosey with the facts.[/quote]
It also appears Mr. Head makes part of his living from cell towers.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/is/telecomm/site.cfm?site=26[/url]
Politics in Davis makes for strange bedfellows.
“…then we need 12,000 gallons per minute. UCD didn’t want 4,500, how are they going to react to 12,000?”
This is not UCD’s call!. There are several “compromise” solutions that can be agreed to and if it goes to court, the decision, IMO, will be a compromise since neither UCD nor Davis has sole legal rights to this deep aquifer groundwater. One compromise solution would be that Davis would drill the needed deep aquifer wells but that the time period during which they could draw the needed water(probably somewhere between 5-12,000 gal/minute) would have a “sunset date”, rather than indefinitely into the future, at which time the use of all or some of these additional deep aquifer wells would be reconsidered. This would permit the phasing-in of the surface water project.
“Maybe you should just ask them. “
Why didn’t I think of that? Oh I did, I get nothing but evasive answers.
Regarding the deep aquifer strategy being floated by opponents of the surface water project – overlying rights (UCD) trump appropriative rights (Davis municipal uses). The city does not have overlying rights to extract water for sale to the residents.[quote]Types of Groundwater Rights
Overlying Rights – All property owners above a common aquifer possess a mutual right to the reasonable and beneficial use of a groundwater resource on land overlying the aquifer from which the water is taken. Overlying rights are correlative (related to each other) and overlying users of a common water source must share the resource on a pro rata basis in times of shortage. A proper overlying use takes precedence over all non-overlying uses.
Appropriative Rights – Non-overlying uses and public uses, such as municipal uses, are called appropriative uses. Among groundwater appropriators the “first in time, first in right” priority system applies. Appropriative users are entitled to use the surplus water available after the overlying user’s rights are satisfied.[/quote]
So now, davisite, you are confident that we can double or triple (or more) the pumping from the deep aquifer, the same one you think we need to study to ascertain its yield?
An EIR was done for the City of Davis project — to mitigate the impact, the number of wells was reduced.
An EIR was done for the university’s increased pumping for West Village — which they mitigated with surface water.
The EIR for the university’s increased pumping specified a ten year maximum, then the increased deeper pumping would cease as they hook into the city’s surface water supply. That is their mitigation of the impact.
But if you cancel the surface water project for 20 – 25 years, they can’t do that.
If you cancel the surface water project for 20 – 25 years, they need to increase UCD pumping from 2300 a-f to 5300 a-f. Then the City of Davis will replace a dozen of our wells, increasing the demand on the deep aquifer another 7000 to 8000 acre-feet or more.
Minimum pumping from the deep aquifer goes from 2300 to 13000+ acre feet.
[quote]”Maybe you should just ask them. “
DM: “Why didn’t I think of that? Oh I did, I get nothing but evasive answers.”[/quote]
Ernie Head hired Mike Harrington to go after the names of the people who filed protest forms, thinking that it would be easy to just contact the 4800 and ask them to sign the petition. When this wasn’t allowed. Ernie must have had to pay to hire signatures to supplement the volunteers’ signature gathering. Ernie must benefit financially from the status quo re: water or he would not be doing this. It is not clear where Ernie stopped being Mike’s client. I suspect that Ernie is paying Mike to manage the campaign. Vague answers, lies and distortion are responses to every question about this.
Ryan: I am nearly certain that the scenario you describe is not what happened. Head did not hire Harrington.
I bet Mike Harrington could answer this. MIke?
Don: I am not at liberty to discuss whom my clients are, or are not.
Also, at this time I am not intending to run for CC in the June 2012 elections. People ask me all the time, and I don’t have that intention.
Just waiting for the referendum signature count to come back from the City Clerk. Maybe in a week or two.
I guess we will just have to wait until Oct. 31 for the campaign finance filing. I do hope they remember to include Mike Harrington’s fees for his representation of Ernie Head’s attempt to get the contact information for all of the people who filed 218 protest forms in order to facilitate the gathering of signatures.
He says he is now “not at liberty to discuss this,” but he already has in an earlier posting acknowledging that he was representing Ernie Head and this is reflected in articles in the Davis Enterprise.
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
Attorneys often and most of the time handle such matters pro bono.
@Matt Williams:
You have copied and pasted the well water selenium levels, not the effluent selenium levels.
[i]”Ernie Head has sold water well sites to the city.”
Adam Smith: Can you elaborate?
Also, I disagree with your assertion that Michael’s activities are driven purely by financial conflicts of interest. In my opinion – ego, a need to be politically relevant, and an agenda to manipulate the 2012 election are a big part of the equation. [/i]
I don’t know more. Since Mike has already admitted that he works for Ernie, I was hoping he would provide substantive information. As to political motivations, I wouldn’t be in any place to make a judgement, other than to observe that Mike made strong accusations regarding Steve Souza which appear to have been baseless and have apparently been proven false.
It’s interesting – Mike is very interested to know who is getting PR money because it thinks it motivates them in a certain direction. I’m sure that the money behind the referendum is financially motivated also. If one side has a need to know, then both need to know.
Here is the situation with selenium for Woodland. I doubt Davis differs much, but I’ll see if I can find out.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/Woodlanddischargelimits.png[/img]
@Don Shor: Correct me if I am wrong, but I see Woodland’s well water selenium levels; I don’t see their existing effluent selenium levels. Effluent selenium levels are usually lower than groundwater selenium levels.
Davis’ selenium [b]EFFLUENT[/b]levels are currently in compliance with daily maximum levels, but not monthly levels which will come into effect in 2015, unless the city can receive an extension until 2020. This puts Davis current monthly average selenium effluent levels somewhere between 4.4 Ug/L and 7.2Ug/L, according to the RWRCB.
The daily maximum level is somewhere under 7.2Ug/L, and the average monthly level will be around 4.4Ug/L.
WPCF discharge in the chart above are effluent discharge; second column from the right.
“The city will receive interim limits only as long as there is a commitment to and progress toward new source water….”
davisite2 said . . .
[i]
“This is not UCD’s call!”[/i]
davisite, you are talking through your hat. You clearly don’t understand the EIR process. It is absolutely UCD’s call. The City will issue the EIR and UCD will have the “call” whether to file an objection. Then it will be the City’s “call” whether to abandon the EIR or attempt to reach a compromise. If the City chooses the latter and UCD says, “no way, we were very clear with you in the 2005 EIR that 4,500 was the max.” Then the City will have the “call” whether or not to fight [u]UCD’s senior rights[/u] to the deep aquifer. If the City does choose to fight, they will certify the EIR in spite of the UCD objection. Then it will be UCD’s “call” whether to assert their senior right in court.
So it is UCD’s “call” first, and it is UCD’s “call” last. Go confirm that with your family members.
. There are several “compromise” solutions that can be agreed to and if it goes to court, the decision, IMO, will be a compromise since neither UCD nor Davis has sole legal rights to this deep aquifer groundwater. One compromise solution would be that Davis would drill the needed deep aquifer wells but that the time period during which they could draw the needed water(probably somewhere between 5-12,000 gal/minute) would have a “sunset date”, rather than indefinitely into the future, at which time the use of all or some of these additional deep aquifer wells would be reconsidered. This would permit the phasing-in of the surface water project.
[quote]WPCF discharge in the chart above are effluent discharge; second column from the right.
“The city will receive interim limits only as long as there is a commitment to and progress toward new source water….”[/quote]
Do I take this to mean that if we do not go forward w the surface water project, then stiffer selenium limits will apply rather than the interim ones?
@ Elaine: That is how I read it.
Other than the surface water, the only way to get around the selenium problem is to go heavily to the deep aquifer.
Matt has listed the wells with high selenium. Should the City of Davis try to replace all of those wells with deep aquifer wells, or simply try to replace the wells that are 30+ years or older with deep aquifer wells, we run into the problems Matt describes of conflict with UCD. Not to mention greatly increasing the pumping from the deep aquifer.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Don: I am not at liberty to discuss whom my clients are, or are not.
[b]Also, at this time I am not intending to run for CC in the June 2012 elections.[/b] People ask me all the time, and I don’t have that intention.
Just waiting for the referendum signature count to come back from the City Clerk. Maybe in a week or two.”[/i]
[img]http://img.youtube.com/vi/_RMSb-tS_OM/0.jpg[/img]
Sue Greenwald said . . .
“@Matt Williams: You have copied and pasted the well water selenium levels, not the effluent selenium levels.”
Ahh, she lives. Okay Sue, now that you are engaging the selenium issue, lets dig into it. Selenium from the well water doesn’t reduce during home usage, so it arrives at the wastewater treatment plant at virtually the exact same level as it comes out of the well. Currently the wastewater treatment plant’s overland flow process dettles out a portion of the selenium from the water flow that is discharged.
The challenge with that process is two fold, 1) the proposed wastewater treatment plant upgrade (that was the result of your very good cost saving efforts) removes the overland flow process from the plant, and 2) the overland flow process means that all bird life that lands in the overland flow ponds is being exposed to significantly elevated levels of selenium.
Why is 2) important? Just reference the Kesterson (see [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesterson_Reservoir[/url] die off of migratory waterfowl, fish, insects, plants and algae within the Kesterson Reservoir. Is that what you want Davis to be remembered for . . . Kesterson 2?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
“Davis’ selenium EFFLUENT levels are currently in compliance with daily maximum levels, but not monthly levels which will come into effect in 2015, unless the city can receive an extension until 2020. This puts Davis current monthly average selenium effluent levels somewhere between 4.4 Ug/L and 7.2Ug/L, according to the RWRCB.”
Actually Sue your statement above is incorrect. Davis’ levels are not in compliance period. The only reason that is currently not an issue is that until 2015 the SWRCB has given Davis an interim fine level of $0.00 for being out of compliance.
To torture a metaphor, we are feeling no pain, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are stoned.
It seems a lot of people here may be stoned, as Matt suggests above. Equating me with Nixon? Is it the Davis water that goes to El Macero? Maybe well water does that to people?
Well, speaking of Nixon, reminds me of the mantra from the Watergate hearings. “Just follow the money.” That is exactly what we will do with this water project. We need some audits of how the city and JPA have spent our cash over the years. We will also look for the political donations by the water interests.
This is such a fine Blog, DV!
Mike, you can duck with the best of the dabblers.
VOTER2012 wrote: “It’s interesting that Michael would mention Bill Ritter in the context of this issue.”
Why? Bill did the best political ad in the history of this City, from my experience going back nearly 20 yrs. But you know, when you are an elected official and you misbehave, like Supervisor Thompson did with her use of county money to write a political piece that was a campaign piece for Covell Village in October 2005, expect bad, bad things to happen. Just like what I am anticipating from the opposition to the referendum or initiative, whichever is on the ballot in June.
VOTER2012: Ernie owns a cell tower site, and presumably gets monthly rent from that? Good information; guess I have to up my hourly rate that you are fantising about. From 0, to 0. Or are there more digits I am forgetting about? Keep guessing, and maybe your good cheer will return soon from the hiatus of the past few days.
Matt: Duck? Huh? I am using my own name here. What am I ducking? Nothing. You demand answers to lots of questions, but I am not going to try this case in this Blog. You will see as things develop.
Rich beat me to it on the lie from the city and project supporters that we have to immediately approve this project or “lose it.” I was going to put that out there a little later.
Trust me: there is a lot more factual information that also debunks the city and JPA. All in due time.
Dunning uses his own name, and I would say on all the issues you care most about, Bob has given it on the chin far more often than anyone has reached his.
We had over 50 volunteers gathering signatures. Should be counted sometime next week.
Mike, your name is not the issue. As you have acknowledged you are ducking the factual questions. Why? That is simple, you don’t want the voters to cast their ballot based on their assessment of the facts and the tradeoffs associated with those facts. You want the voters to cast their ballots based on emotion, therefore you are doing everything you can to slow the fact finding and information sharing process down. Duck. Duck. Duck.
Equating you to Nixon? That was easy. Read the headline of the image. “Will he run? Nixon tells all tonight” Fast forward to current day Davis . . . “Will he run? Harrington tells all tonight”
Michael: Your repartee is pathetic.
You’ve got me confused with someone else. I’m not speculating that you are being paid by Ernie. He’s a smart guy … I’m guessing smart enough to know that hiring you would be a waste of resources.
Hey guys, there was a classic World Series game on TV tonight. But instead it looks like you all wasted your night on here beating a dead horse. Some on here claim Mr. Harrington is being paid but by the number and incessant posts by many of the proponents it makes one wonder if some of you are getting paid.
rusty, some of us aren’t even proponents. Who should we turn to for our check?
. . . and the game was awesome. Some of us can read and watch at the same time. 8>)
[b]@Don Shor[/b]:If that column in fact refers to Woodland’s current average monthly selenium levels, then it is not far from the legal limit.
I’ll try to check this out.
[b]@DON SHOR[/b]:
If Woodland’s actual current effluent limit is the RWQCB interim limit (31Ug/L) or close to it, then I don’t know why it is so high, given that I was told by the RWQCB that the current Davis selenium level is somewhere between 4.6Ug/L and &7.2 Ug/L.
Perhaps Woodland’s wells are too shallow, or perhaps they have a major industrial polluter.
Unless the folks at the RWQCB are mistaken, Davis does not have a problem of this magnitude.
Current discharge is 4.6 (obviously that isn’t static, so it must be an average or something).
Current temporary limit is far higher than that: 31, well above even their highest reading in the range shown for the wells.
Long-term limit is lower than current discharge: 3.2
They will continue to get these “interim” limits as long as they are making progress toward the long-term limit. ]
Woodland’s problem with boron is of a greater magnitude, but I doubt it is considered as serious since the selenium issue is based on the EPA’s revised standards pertaining to the bioaccumulation in the Delta.
Most of your discussions about variance have had to do with salinity. Selenium is a much greater concern IMO due to the EPA’s role.
I personally doubt that Davis would get a variance for selenium unless there was actual progress toward lower selenium levels. I guess you believe that financial considerations would trump the EPA standards. It is true that a delayed approach has been allowed for selenium on the San Joaquin, largely because (I believe based on what I have read) mitigation simply isn’t possible any faster.
Davis could — and I think it is likely — find itself with a variance for salinity (and possibly boron) but not for selenium. So it would all be moot. The only way to deal with selenium is to go heavily to the deep wells, increasing the pumping by 2 to 4 times the current level. You would take the deep wells from 2300 to 13000+ acre-feet. Some people here seem rather blasé about that. I think it is very unlikely UCD would allow that without quite a fuss. I think it could to great harm to the deep aquifer.
[i]”Hey guys, there was a classic World Series game on TV tonight. But instead it looks like you all wasted your night on here beating a dead horse.”[/i]
Rusty, right on. What a game! That will go down as a classic no matter who wins tomorrow (actually, tonight!)
Dunning’s column in the Enterprise tonight was sure a slap to the CC proponents of the surface water project. I was at a work-related event at Tres Hermanas tonight and talked to several well-educated Davisites about the issue and it was clear that higher rates are all they know. Dunning seems to be running in the same pack of the unknowing, unwilling or incapable to consider other long-view concerns.
I sure hope all you blockers and delayers are right on this. Otherwise I might have to send my poor kids to TP your house because they have to pay for another mistake of a prior generation. =[
[b]@Don Shor[/b]:
The person I spoke with at the RWQCB said that our limit will be 4.6Ug/L (I didn’t write it down — remote chance she could have said 4.4Ug/L but definitely in the 4’s). She was quite sure it wouldn’t be any lower; I asked her a few times.
[quote]Dunning seems to be running in the same pack of the unknowing, unwilling or incapable to consider other long-view concerns.–[b]Jeff Boone [/b][/quote]Or it is simply possible that the combined water/wastewater projects are too costly to do without phasing them in and that it is in the best interest of everyone, including the children who need support for their schools and in some cases food for their tables (hopefully metaphorically speaking) that we meet our water infrastructure needs in a fiscally manageable fashion.
[i]”that we meet our water infrastructure needs in a fiscally manageable fashion.”[/i]
Sue, I think my health insurance is too costly, but I need it. We all need water too. I would say we need to meet our water infrastructure needs in a fiscally “responsible” fashion. I’m still not clear what plan B really is and what the short and long-term costs will be. Until I see it and understand it, I am still of the mind that plan A is the most reposible thing to do. Note that I do not generally support tax increases.
Selenium
Per ORDER NO. R5-2010-0098
Sept 23 2010
Interim limit 7.1 – 7.2 (2 different discharge sites).
Final limit 4.4
Full compliance by January 2015.
Current discharge 1.2 – 5.6
Many wells out of compliance, will have to be taken out of production.
I have demonstrated that, due to well age and the selenium issue, a large number of wells will have to be replaced soon if we don’t go to the surface water project. Again, the increase in deep aquifer pumping could take it from 2300 acre-feet per year to 13000+ acre-feet per year.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b]If our current discharge is 1.2Ug/L – 5.6Ug/L (staff couldn’t answer that for me when I called, so thanks for digging it up), and our limit will be 4.4 Ug/L, then it shouldn’t be all that difficult to meet the selenium levels for the next 20 years. If I recall, we are already planning to take out two of our worst wells and replace them with deep wells, so that might well be sufficient.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Don Shor: If our current discharge is 1.2Ug/L – 5.6Ug/L (staff couldn’t answer that for me when I called, so thanks for digging it up), and our limit will be 4.4 Ug/L, then it shouldn’t be all that difficult to meet the selenium levels for the next 20 years. If I recall, we are already planning to take out two of our worst wells and replace them with deep wells, so that might well be sufficient.”[/i]
Sue, your point would have more weight if it were not for this little tidbit from page 6 of the city’s wastewater permit fact sheet.
[b]”The Discharger has projected that a new tertiary treatment system could be completed as early as 2015 or as late as the end of 2018 for facilities to provide a tertiary (or equivalent) level of treatment and year-round nitrification/denitrification. The Discharger anticipates the new treatment system would be able to comply with priority pollutant water quality standards for all constituents except selenium. Removal of the overland flow system as part of the upgrade to tertiary would improve the effluent quality for most constituents, but would likely cause an increase in effluent selenium. Achieving compliance with the CTR effluent selenium limitations would most likely require a change in the City’s water supply.”[/b]
When I questioned Staff about that statement to confirm what it meant, this is what I was told.
[i]The statement from the permit is correct in that the overland flow process currently does A) reduce selenium concentrations, and B) present significant challenges in meeting future discharge requirements not related to selenium. Regarding B), facilities to treat the effluent from the overland flow process would have to be extensive in order to meet new requirements for TSS and turbidity. These extensive facility improvements would be for one constituent and have little or no other benefit. Future new requirements would possibly necessitate additional improvements beyond what is done now if the overland flow process is kept in service.
Additionally, in the wetlands we are required to monitor avian eggs and soils for selenium accumulation and must create a plan to reduce selenium if the geometric mean avian egg concentration exceeds 4.0 ug/L. We are currently in the 3.5 ug/L area and the levels have been trending up over the past 10 years. Alan Pryor has that information if you are interested.[/i]
So, your statement “it shouldn’t be all that difficult to meet the selenium levels for the next 20 years” doesn’t factor in the removal of the overland flow process and the resultant increase in effluent selenium concentration.
Further, as was presented by Woodland’s chief water engineer at the Water Forum in Woodland Wednesday night, the SWRCB has set Woodland’s current selenium threshold at the 3.2 ug/L, which is lower than our current 4.4 ug/L. What reason do you have to believe that Davis’ selenium threshold won’t be going down to at least 3.2 when we get our new numbers in 2012?
[i]If I recall, we are already planning to take out two of our worst wells and replace them with deep wells, so that might well be sufficient. [/i]
It is extremely doubtful that replacing two wells will solve the selenium problem.
All roads lead to the deep aquifer. Except surface water.
By the way, the “weighted average” for selenium in city wells in 2010 was 6.4. Deep aquifer was 2.8. So you aren’t getting selenium-free water from the deep aquifer. I think you need to analyze this in more detail. Complying with the selenium requirement would require replacing [i]several[/i] of the intermediate wells with deep ones. And remember that a majority of our wells are at or past their life span.
There is no way your plan avoids drilling a significant number of wells into the deep aquifer, leading to a 200% to 400% increase in use of that aquifer. And it puts UCD into a bind, requiring them to double their pumping from the deep aquifer in ten years.
But you keep talking about a couple of wells, or a few wells. Please do the math and show me how you are not advocating for a significant increase in use of the deep aquifer for a period of 20 – 25 years.