In the continuing debate on water, that has now extended beyond the Prop 218 process and moved into a period of signature-gathering for a potential referendum or initiative, the issue of applying for a variance has surfaced as critical.
“I think it’s critical to get as much flexibility as we can, because, how can it hurt?” the Councilmember said at the council meeting that approved the water rates.
But, in the Vanguard’s meeting with the city, the city dismissed the notion that a variance could provide anything other than temporary flexibility for the city. And they pointed out that the variance itself could not even be applied for until the city was out of compliance.
The city is still operating on a 2017 time frame, based on its 2007 permit.
According to the city, in order for the city to apply for a variance, they would have to be out of compliance with discharge requirements and then would have to show good cause to defer the implementation of fines. And even that would not be an indefinite period of time.
Acting City Public Works Director Bob Clarke argued that under current law, the city cannot get a variance now.
The best approach may be to go through the legislature to get legislative relief to change the laws.
However, good cause would also be, in the view of Mr. Clarke, difficult to show.
He argued that the city has already maxed out the current delay, and he cannot think of a good reason that the city would get a variance at this point.
In fact, the only reason that Mr. Clarke thinks that could constitute good cause is if the voters, through a referendum, vote down the rate hikes.
Even then, he thinks it would be a temporary respite, at best.
What he thinks would happen is that water officials would put pressure on the city to encourage the people to do the right thing. In fact, he thinks it is quite possible, even with a voter revolt on rate hikes, the state could fine and force the city to step up.
The best case scenario for the city may be to get a variance in order to prolong or delay the rate hikes past the six-year time frame of rate increases that the city is putting into place now.
However, the city believes that it cannot stop working on the project at this point. There is too much uncertainty that the city would have to bank on, in hopes of getting a variance, and once again the problem rests with the fact that the city cannot even request a variance until they are out of compliance and by that point it is likely too late.
Deputy Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ken Landau, also made the argument that appeals and a variance were not possible.
However, a close read of his arguments suggests more room for maneuvering than he implies.
Mr. Landau told the Clean Water Agency, “If we can make findings that you have a project, you have been diligent during that first five years in trying to achieve compliance, and a number of other things that go along with that, then we can, at the Regional Board’s discretion, grant you up to an additional five years.”
Can we not make the case, then, that the public has rejected the project, that the economics and finances are not right now, but we are going to be finding a way to make this work? I don’t know the answer to that, but there seems to be a lot more leeway than the city has implied.
Bob Clarke’s answer suggests that yes, we could probably get a variance for a short time, with threats and pressure coming down from the state to push the city and its voters to do the right thing.
This is a similar response to what Mr. Landau gave, “If a community is not moving forward with a project, even if we gave them protection initially, we can do discretionary fines.”
The question may be the degree to which the state regulators draw a distinction between the city officials and the voters.
Nevertheless, even if it is temporary, there may be an advantage to finding anything to delay. The longer we push back those rate hikes, the more we have paid off wastewater, the more the economy has a chance to rebound, but also the more the project has a chance to go up in costs.
Proponents of going forward with the water project now have argued pushing the project back will inevitably increase the costs. Opponents have questioned that claim, but let us suppose it is accurate.
In a struggling economy, I may be willing to forestall a smaller payment now for a larger one in the future, in hopes that in a better economy, the impact of that larger cost will impact my personal finances less.
It sounds counterintuitive, but let us suppose right now I am struggling to get by, making just $2000 per month. A $30 rate hike now would be difficult to absorb with all of the other bills. However, if in 2017 I am making not $2000, but $5000 or even $10,000 a month, a $60 fee increase, while larger on paper, actually hurts my pocketbook less.
The city, however, is operating under the belief that it cannot get a variance and if it does, it would be due to the referendum but would be only temporary. In our view, that may still help, even if they are correct on this point.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“City Does Not Believe a Variance is the Answer to Water Issue”
I do not believe that ANYONE believes that a variance is THE ANSWER to the water issue. Rather, it offers time to more fully evaluate the current plan, consider changes and alternatives as we move towards adding a surface water component to Davis’ FUTURE water supply when the cost will likely not be as devastating to voter budgets and government coffers will likely be more able to assist in the cost.
I commend Acting Public Director Bob Clark for his clear responses to the Vanguard’s questions. It is a welcome change from the obfuscations and stonewalling of previous Director Mr. Weir.
I still say that because of the economy and how the new water restrictions are going to hurt the cities and people involved that the CWA will eventually relax the restrictions. Obama recently backed the EPA off of new carbon limits because of the negative results it would’ve had on the economy. I say the way to go is Sue’s idea, slow things down and go for the variance. We’re going to feel pretty stupid if we go ahead with the project and are strapped with huge water and sewer bills then find out later that we didn’t need to do to new relaxed rules.
[i]It sounds counterintuitive, but let us suppose right now I am struggling to get by, making just $2000 per month. A $30 rate hike now would be difficult to absorb with all of the other bills. However, if in 2017 I am making not $2000, but $5000 or even $10,000 a month, a $60 fee increase, while larger on paper, actually hurts my pocketbook less.[/i]
No it doesn’t sound counterintuitive, but it doesn’t make much sense. What is the basis for assuming that a significant portion of the Davis population would more than double its income in 5 years? Plus by then we will have paid hundreds of thousands, if not more, in fines, because we just didn’t like having to pay for the rules that we created?
I’d like to think that Rusty might be right, but unless we begin electing a more conservative set of legislators, I don’t think there is much chance of getting regulatory relief. IN my view, the situation is more likely to get worse than better, especially if we endure another drought.
Yes, and staff also insisted that we needed to spend $200 million on a wastewater treatment plant when we only needed a $100 million plant. The city would be in big trouble if I had listened to staff. (Staff also said that 3% at 50 would be no problem at all).
When I asked the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board point blank if we had any options if we felt that the cumulative impact of completing the surface water project at this time would cause undue financial hardship and socio-economic impact, he explained that the WRCB was developing a salinity variance procedure. He explained that cities had been invited to participate in crafting the procedure. He suggested that we could participate if we wished.
He explained that the salinity variance procedure was put in place because the state was working on revising its salinity management plan.
The variance could last up to ten years. After that, the new salinity management plan could well allow much more flexibility, and certainly could well allow flexibility to allow us to postpone the project for about 20 years.
Our water attorney confirmed this at the council meeting.
The Board makes the decision. If we had no grounds to get a variance a priori, the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Board would have not suggested it.
The window of opportunity is limited. I made a motion at the council meeting that we participate. Tragically, it was not seconded.
Why would the council not have seconded a motion compelling us to pursue maximum flexibility? Simple prudence and due diligence should compel council to pursue flexibility. Even if they don’t wish to exercise that flexibility, many things could still go wrong along the way.
David, I am disappointed that you did not ask for my comments on Bob Clarke’s statement, given that you know full well just how wrong staff has been in the past on the big issues.
[quote]No it doesn’t sound counterintuitive, but it doesn’t make much sense. What is the basis for assuming that a significant portion of the Davis population would more than double its income in 5 years? Plus by then we will have paid hundreds of thousands, if not more, in fines, because we just didn’t like having to pay for the rules that we created?
I’d like to think that Rusty might be right, but unless we begin electing a more conservative set of legislators, I don’t think there is much chance of getting regulatory relief. IN my view, the situation is more likely to get worse than better, especially if we endure another drought.[/quote]
Couldn’t have said it better!
“David, I am disappointed that you did not ask for my comments on Bob Clarke’s statement”
I sent you an email on Saturday but I didn’t get a response. I figured you were preoccupied with other stuff. And I also figured you could respond in the comments.
[quote]The variance could last up to ten years. After that, the new salinity management plan could well allow much more flexibility, and certainly could well allow flexibility to allow us to postpone the project for about 20 years. [/quote]
The variance “could” last up to ten years (you have suggested as much as 30 years in other posts)?
The “new” salinity standards (we have to assume they are going to be relaxed) “could well allow” “more” “flexibility”?
“Could well allow” “flexibility” to allow…postponement?
THAT IS A BOATLOAD OF WISHFUL THINKING…
“Why would the council not have seconded a motion compelling us to pursue maximum flexibility? Simple prudence and due diligence should compel council to pursue flexibility.”
Sue, the citizens of Davis will second your motion when we win the referendum vote.
Sue said “The variance could last up to ten years. After that, the new salinity management plan could well allow much more flexibility, and certainly could well allow flexibility to allow us to postpone the project for about 20 years.”
So then, it seems, you prefer a degraded environment instead of higher water bills.
Hey Toad, how much degradation happens to the environment if Davis goes along with all that new development that you incessantly preach for?
David,
I didn’t see your e-mail. I’ll go back and see if I received it.
[quote]The variance “could” last up to ten years (you have suggested as much as 30 years in other posts)? — [b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, I never said that. Please actually READ my posts.
Well there is loss of arable land but the trade off is habitat for humanity that may result in fewer miles traveled by car. So as always there are tradeoffs.
Look rusty, I’m not saying there should never be any impacts but the fishery of the Delta is in serious danger of being lost. Now if you are someone who truly can’t afford to pay for the water I understand economic hardship but I suspect that many opponents either don’t want to pay but can afford to or understand that new water supplies will be needed to sustain growth. For those people, I want to point out, there is an environmental cost of adding salt to an already compromised ecosystem that is under severe environmental stress. So let’s be clear asking for a variance on economic grounds is bad for the delta environment. So, I hope people come to realize the lack of environmental leadership such a position represents
ADAM: [i]”In my view, the situation is more likely to get worse than better, especially if we endure another drought.”[/i]
If we are dependent on well water, a drought will affect us less than if we are dependent on river water. A drought is a surface condition. It means less snow pack, less water in the reservoirs and less water in the rivers to draw from.
On the other hand, if we are exclusively dependent on well water and that source dries up … the shinola hits the fan.
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mhAfYZI_eFY/RiKBYQwWtCI/AAAAAAAAAno/vYQ8LqZ_fks/s200/shinola.jpg[/img]
[quote]On the other hand, if we are exclusively dependent on well water and that source dries up … the shinola hits the fan.–[b]Rich Rifkin[/b][/quote] Rich, our ground water will not “dry up” over night, according to people I have talked with. It is a gradual process, if it happens at all. We will not be without water.
One of the good things about the phasing approach is that we do have everything in place to proceed to expedite the completion of the surface water project if we get confirmed, credible, objective indications that our wells are starting to run into trouble.
Rich, you have no trouble accepting the risk of not having a fourth or fifth firestation or a police officer on every block. Unfortunately, we can’t afford to live in a completely risk-free environment.
With everything in place to complete the surface water sooner project if the need arises, I think that this is one of the lesser risks that we live with daily,b y far.
“IF( my caps) we are exclusively dependent on well water and that source dries up … the shinola hits the fan.”
These IFs have been purposefully NOT been addressed by the Saylor’s past Council majority and our PWD, under the leadership of Weir. Why haven’t the in-depth studies been done to determine what the capacity/lifespan is of our aquifers?
Groundwater overdraft analysis: [url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/chapt3d.html[/url]
Take note, the silence to my argument that a variance means contributing to the degradation of the Delta ecosystem and its fishery is deafening.
Don…. I will read this report in detail when time permits. What I see,on skimming the charts , is that there is no reference to the deep water aquifer into which Davis has already sunk wells and would increase in number,if necessary. Your description of this aquifer in previous posts as virtually without recharge capacity appears to make the data in this report irrelevant.
[quote]Rich, our ground water will not “dry up” over night, according to people I have talked with. It is a gradual process, if it happens at all. We will not be without water. [/quote]
Unnamed sources again?
“Quantifying the precise degree of overdraft would require far more data and a complete groundwater modeling analysis of how pumping in both average and drought years is affecting the long-term recharge and discharge balance on the aquifer. Thus far nobody in the County has undertaken such a water planning task.”
After offering voluminous charts, their above final statement appears to confirm that the studies necessary to quantify have not been performed.
“the precise degree of overdraft” tells you that[b] we are overdrafting the intermediate aquifers[/b]. The estimated range is given in the link I provided. The deep aquifer basically does not recharge.
That is not a sustainable situation. The current situation is not sustainable. Longterm use of the deep aquifer is not sustainable.
Overdrafting an aquifer leads to subsidence, which is already occurring. It can also lead to decreased quality.
“Because the deep aquifer has been found only under the southeastern portion of the County (i.e. in the vicinity of Davis), and has limited or no natural recharge (Scott, 1990), it is not considered as significant or reliable a supply source for the County as the main aquifer or other surface supplies (though it is used by the University of California, Davis and may become important for the city of Davis).”
Davisite2
Read section 3A of the report that Don provided the link to. Here’s an excerpt:
“Yolo County has two distinct and hydraulically separate aquifers: the main aquifer (indicated in Figure 1), also called the shallow and intermediate depth aquifer (within 700 feet below ground surface); and the deep aquifer (below 1000 feet depth). [i]In this investigation, all references to groundwater resources and the ‘aquifer’ are to the main aquifer.[/i] Because the deep aquifer has been found only under the southeastern portion of the County (i.e. in the vicinity of Davis), and has limited or no natural recharge (Scott, 1990), it is not considered as significant or reliable a supply source for the County as the main aquifer or other surface supplies (though it is used by the University of California, Davis and may become important for the city of Davis).”
Notice that the conclusions reached in the report pertain to the main aquifer, not the deep aquifer. The report states that the deep aquifer is not a reliable source of supply and has limited to no natural recharge. The main aquifer is responsible for selenium, manganese problems, nitrate, minerals contributing to salinity, etc.
Don, do you know if Mimi Jenkins ([url]http://www.watershedasia.org/about-watershed-asia/team/watershed-asia-mimi-jenkins/[/url]) has testified before the WDWCA?
I think it would be helpful to the public in Davis and perhaps to our City Council to hear her recommendations with regard to the water works projects, and it would be helpful to hear Dr. Jenkins address the pros and cons of the alternative that Sue Greenwald favors. It’s quite clear that Dr. Jenkins is as expert on water issues in Yolo County as anyone ever could be.
All of this is a waste of time. It’s going to a vote of the people and it’s going to get shot down. We’re doing it Sue’s way. The rest of you can like it or not but the voters will be heard.
Rifkin
One can’t hide from you, can they? If I were Mimi, I wouldn’t enter this ring without a hefty consulting fee.
Rusty is one to never let a fact get in his way
ENO: [i]”Rifkin – One can’t hide from you, can they?”[/i]
WTF?!
[quote]WTF?! [/quote]
World Taekwondo Federation?!
rusty49: “We’re doing it Sue’s way.”
Brett: [i]“I believe we should begin moving forward with a surface water project in the next several years. I do believe we need to ‘re-think’ what we are doing here though.”[/i]
Elaine: [i]”’In the next several years’? Does that mean now, 5 years from now, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30?”[/i]
Brett: [i]“I think of ‘several’ as something like 2,3, or 4 years.”[/i]
That isn’t Sue’s way.
Then why do you bother Rusty?
I’ll tell you quite honestly I have no idea how this will turn out. What makes you so sure?
[i]All of this is a waste of time. It’s going to a vote of the people and it’s going to get shot down. We’re doing it Sue’s way. The rest of you can like it or not but the voters will be heard. [/i]
Rusty, on most issues I find myself in agreement with your position, but not this one. We have republic form of government. The mass of voters, even in Davis, is enormously unprepared to deal with complex, difficult issues such as this one. The City Council has spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in studies to get information. They have spent countless hours reviewing the materials and listening to experts. And they came to their conclusions.
85% of voters will spend not more than 10 minutes thinking about this. Some will side with the city council for the right reasons. Some will react solely to cost. Some renters will not live here very long, and will vote against it because they don’t want to help pay for a system from which they will not benefit. Turning the matter over to voters, as we have with so many initiatives in CA, is a big mistake. Everything becomes a soundbite, and nuance and complexity are missing from the message. Look at how Michael Harrison conveys his “vote against” message – inaccurate sound bites about Woodland’s financial condition, mislabeled descriptions of “blocking” — nothing substantive, but all emotional headline grabbers.
[quote]Brett: “I think of ‘several’ as something like 2,3, or 4 years.”
That isn’t Sue’s way. — [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]You are absolutely right Don Shor. Brett’s position on the the wastewater/surface water projects is virtually identical to that the the council majorty.
@ Sue; as far as I can tell, yes. I would like him to verify that, since some of his listed supporters are on record as opposing the water project entirely. So he may wish to clarify sooner rather than later.
@Don; I think you have a point. I just received an e-mail from one of his key supporters assuring me that he shares my position on water.
The sooner he clears this up, the better.
@Don; actually, two of his key supporter have assured me that he shares my position on water.
When I have time, I’ll see what other people’s perception is.
I would prefer, then, that Brett disavow his statement that he supports going forward with the water project in “something like 2,3, or 4 years.”
Otherwise, his supporters are saying one thing privately, and he is saying another publicly. This is not an auspicious start to his campaign.
When analyzing project risks and benefits, risks are both the potential for negative impacts as well as risks of missed positive opportunities. There are also unknown risks… risks that cannot be quantified but that necessitate some budget padding based on the body of currently available body of knowledge and best practice.
This is my concern about delaying this – inevitable – water project. The current body of knowledge says that public infrastructure projects will grow in cost exceeding inflation. Environmental regulation, building codes, public sector contracting and labor requirements… these all have expansive tendencies within our great “trying to be Europe” state. Also, unless Herman Cain wins the election, energy costs will likely continue to increase and construction materials – all dependent on energy – will inflate also.
Rusty and Mike Harrington may be correct that thing is going to be killed by the popular vote, but unless someone can quantify opportunities to maintain or reduce the cost (adjusted by inflation), or make a case that it we don’t require the change, I don’t support waiting.
@ Don Shor: “This is not an auspicious start to his campaign.”
I would argue that the inauspicious start to his campaign occurred when Michael Harrington announced on the Vanguard that “our friend Brett is running.”
[i]If we are dependent on well water, a drought will affect us less than if we are dependent on river water. A drought is a surface condition. It means less snow pack, less water in the reservoirs and less water in the rivers to draw from.
On the other hand, if we are exclusively dependent on well water and that source dries up … the shinola hits the fan. [/i]
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear with my words. I was trying to convey that I think the water quality issues will get worse with a drought…less water in the river and delta means that the salts that we are depositing into the water system will become more concentrated and the plant and animal species sensitive to salinity will be more impacted, causing regulators to increase the salinity standards rather than relax them.
“That is not a sustainable situation. The current situation is not sustainable. Longterm use of the deep aquifer is not sustainable.”
Don… It has been extrapolated from other studies that it is likely that it would be a minimum of 40 years before there was significant drawing down of the deep aquifer. Without an in-depth study, we will not know the true extent of this aquifer’s capacity. I repeat, apparently to no avail in response to the statement concerning the long-term sustainability of the deep aquifer ,that I do not believe that anyone has suggested that the deep aquifer should be Davis’ sole water source forever.
My vote in June 2012 will mostly be based on the candidates’ position on the referendum. Thousands more voters will do the same. Steve: you are going to be running on a platform of vastly higher taxes/fees. Good luck.
[i]It has been extrapolated from other studies that it is likely that it would be a minimum of 40 years before there was significant drawing down of the deep aquifer.[/i]
Source, please?
[i]”Source, please?”[/i]
LOL!!!!
You are talking with Davisite2, you know?
LOL!!!
Regarding drought effects on surface water vs. ground water systems …
“Land subsidence causes many problems including: (1) changes in elevation and slope of streams, canals, and drains; (2) damage to bridges, roads, railroads, storm drains, sanitary sewers, canals, and levees; (3) damage to private and public buildings; and [b](4) failure of well casings from forces generated by compaction of fine-grained materials in aquifer systems.[/b]”
Drought reduces the recharge rate of the aquifer and, at the same time, increases the amount of water being harvested. The resulting subsidence can damage ground water wells.
Its funny how arbitrary censorship is on this blog. I had a post that was both more substantive and less insulting deleted the other day than the one Rifkin posted above.
should read: less insulting than the one Rifkin posted above deleted the other day.
Still no response on my earlier post that a variance is a permit to pollute.
The discussion here is interesting on both sides, but perhaps it should be considered in terms of the wider context.
As argued well in a frightening story that just appeared in Vanity Fair, California municipalities are in dire straits indeed.
[url]http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111[/url]
The coming storm of bankrupt cities will destroy municipal debt and the ability of cities to finance water projects or other such items.
Maybe it’s better to borrow now, while we can, to get this baby built, while investors are still silly enough to lend us money. Later when Davis goes bankrupt, that debt will be discharged along with the rest of the city’s debts, and along with the obligations to Davis retirees and employees.
So as this thread winds down we find ourselves waiting for:
1. Brett to clarify: does he support a long postponement of the surface water project? Or does he stand by his 2 to 4 year comment?
2. verification and links to any deep aquifer studies by davisite that would support his claim.
Mr. Toad would also like a reply to his point.
To be continued….
Don, as I have said before, when I talked to a leading groundwater expert at the University, he said that no adequate studies have been done. After pressing him for a guestimate of when we COULD run into problems, he reluctantly muttered: Probably 40 to 60 years. That was about 5 years ago, so I would say 35 to 55 years. Now that doesn’t mean that he thinks that we will run into problems at that time. I believe he was guessing that that would be our window of safety.
Now I will say in advance that it is up to you whether you think I fabricated this conversation or actually had it. I do make it a policy to try to tell the truth.
“Run into trouble” doesn’t mean run out. It means that we better get serious about completing the project.
Since no adequate studies have been done, it is better to be safe than sorry, and that is why I would advocate purchasing the easements, having everything in place, perhaps accelerate the payment of the wastewater plant a bit, and continue to prepare to commence around the time we retire the wastewater loan and our wastewater rates go way down (the way our rates are going to go down to reflect our (relatively small) water meter loan. That way are ready to proceed earlier if we run into problems.
Again, phasing in huge projects is a time-honored way to get them done in a fiscally responsible manner.
I don’t think you fabricated it, Sue, I just think it is an offhand, and therefore somewhat meaningless and unsubstantiated statement. I take your statement at face value. He was making an educated guess, you are presenting that subjective comment; fair enough.
It is also completely different from what davisite said, which is, I quote, “It has been extrapolated from other studies that it is likely that it would be a minimum of 40 years…”
That I consider to be a complete fabrication on his part. But he could prove me wrong simply by posting a link to a single study from which it has been extrapolated.
What he did say quite strongly is that good studies have not been done. So the point that I am trying to make is that there is no particular reason that, out of Davis’ 150 year history, we are going to run into trouble in the next 20 years.
And, if we did, we have everything in place to move quickly. So, it seems to me fiscally prudent to follow the time-honored technique of phasing in multiple huge capital projects in order to keep rates lower, more constant, and spread over a longer period of time.
Given that we have everything in place in order to proceed with the surface water project at any time if we run into incipient problems with well water before we pay off our wastewater plant, I think that the fiscal risk of proceeding with all $300 million worth of water/wastewater and water purchases at once is far greater than water supply risk.
From what I can gather in this discussion, the sustainable yield of the deep aquifer is largely unknown
(note: all sedimentary aquifers have recharge sources when being pumped; if not drawn in from the sides than drawn in from overlying aquifer systems).
Sounds like studies were conducted in 1990s and prior; why not buy time with a variance and update these studies; including how accurately any forecasts of depletion/depression cones from these prior studies have been borne out by recent data?
If done properly, the effort will not have been wasted; even if we do go ahead with the surface water project, we will want to keep updated with how our aquifers are doing.
Also, has anyone looked into management scenarios whereby farmlands within a few miles of Davis could get minimally treated surface water on the cheap; that way Davis can suck in more of the groundwater under farmland to wells for city of Davis use (of course if water quality is adequate).
Scenarios like these should be evaluated before we embark on $500 million dollar projects; seems like this is a glaring oversight by past city councils in not keeping updated tabs on aquifer status/forecasts.
@Jimt: Beautifully stated. And just as I recommended that we hire Dr. George Tchobanoglous to advise us on the wastewater treatment plant, I suggest that we hire Dr. Graham Fogg of UC Davis as the Principle Investigator for the groundwater study.
He is an ardent believer in conjunctive use, so you needn’t worry that he would understate any problems with the groundwater supply.
[i]Also, has anyone looked into management scenarios whereby farmlands within a few miles of Davis could get minimally treated surface water on the cheap; that way Davis can suck in more of the groundwater under farmland to wells for city of Davis use (of course if water quality is adequate).
Scenarios like these should be evaluated before we embark on $500 million dollar projects; seems like this is a glaring oversight by past city councils in not keeping updated tabs on aquifer status/forecasts. [/i]
A quick call to local well drillers will indicate that farmers are tapped into primarily shallow and rarely the intermediate depth wells. Water quality in those aquifers doesn’t meet discharge standards, as we all know by now. The surface water available to farmers through Yolo Flood Control often contains high amounts of boron, which is unsuitable for some of our local tree crops like walnuts.
[quote]I think that the fiscal risk of proceeding with all $300 million worth of water/wastewater and water purchases at once is far greater than water supply risk.[/quote]
Far greater than the water supply risk? Did you not forget to mention the other part of the equation? Water supply is not the only risk. There is also the risk that we will be out of compliance with the new water quality standards, will not be able to obtain a variance beyond 10 years at best, and could be steeply fined for noncompliance. There is also the likely risk the construction/finance costs will be greater in the future. There is also the risk that costs will be added to the surface water project because of the need to drill deep wells among other things in the meantime. I think the fiscal risk of delaying the surface water project is far greater than moving forward with this project now. And the two UCD experts you insisted be consulted agree with moving forward with the surface water project first and foremost.
[quote]And just as I recommended that we hire Dr. George Tchobanoglous to advise us on the wastewater treatment plant, I suggest that we hire Dr. Graham Fogg of UC Davis as the Principle Investigator for the groundwater study. [/quote]
Now that the two UCD experts you insisted be consulted on the issue do not agree with your position of delay, delay, delay, you want to shop around and find some other expert until you can finally light on someone, anyone, who will publicly agree with your position? How many more dollars do you want to add to the surface water project in consulting fees (consulting fees which you have decried in other situations/posts) to make the surface water project more costly than it already is?
City staff have confirmed directly to me that there has never been a study of the long term viability of the ground water well system. They say that for about 15 years, the focus was on surface water. The deep wells were “a bridge to surface water.”
When we get the referendum qualified in 2 weeks and on the ballot for June 2012, I and others are going to work on a plan for a full technical and fiscal evaluation of the well system. Stay tuned.
I committed to staff last month that if the referendum gets on the ballot, I will stay engaged in working on a Plan B, which is a plan for a thorough study of the well system.
I never voted as a Member of the Davis City Council for funding of surface water studies or programs. As I learned as a UCD Sociology major, “you study it, it gets built.” Obvious. (BTW, what a great major that was.)
Also BTW, the most amazing thing to me about this entire political process I reluctantly got into this August was that the CC flat out won’t submit it to the voters. It was actually pretty shocking.
I understand they want to win (I am a litigator), but there is a morally and politically correct way to do it.
Back-handing the voters on what many of us strongly believe will be a half a billion dollar project that gives our public ownership and control of water to an international for-profit corporation and a regional Joint Powers Authority was disheartening to see.
“How many more dollars do you want to add to the surface water project in consulting fees…”
ERM…If Dr. Tchobanoglous were to offer his expertise, without charge, as a service to his community, would you then support his involvement?
Please disregard previous posting concerning Dr. Tchobanoglous.
[quote]I committed to staff last month that if the referendum gets on the ballot, I will stay engaged in working on a Plan B, which is a plan for a thorough study of the well system.
I never voted as a Member of the Davis City Council for funding of surface water studies or programs. As I learned as a UCD Sociology major, “you study it, it gets built.” Obvious. (BTW, what a great major that was.)
[/quote]
You are for studies but against them?
[quote]ERM…If Dr. Tchobanoglous were to offer his expertise, without charge, as a service to his community, would you then support his involvement?[/quote]
Since we have already had Dr. Tchobanoglous offer his expertise, at a cost to the city I might add, I’m not really understanding your point… Council member Greenwald is advocating for the city to shop around to hire an expert consultant OTHER THAN TCHOBANOGLOUS AND SHROEDER – shop around for a consultant that would specifically agree with GREENWALD’S position of delay, delay, delay… How much is the city required to pay for consultants until Council member Greenwald can light on one that will agree with her position? And is it really fair to allow her to spend the city’s money to cherry pick only experts that align with her view of delay? Her own experts, that she insisted the city consult w, DO NOT AGREE WITH HER POSITION…
HI Don,
I must admit I am puzzled by your questions.
I think I have been clear on my views. I would like the ability to vote on proposed tax increases. As such, I would like the ability to vote on the mandatory increase in water rates, which we are not able to opt out of. So yes, I do support the signature gathering effort for the referendum.
And yes as stated before, I do support the pursuit of surface water rights.
Once the referendum is on the ballot, I do hope the city will be willing to address some of the very real concerns that have been brought up regarding their proposal. Will they? Won’t they? To what extent? Time will tell.
As far as my supporters? They are not a uniform group that thinks in lockstep.
Several of my supporters completely support the city’s proposal in full. Several are completely against the proposal and see no need for surface water.
What an odd view it is to think that I need to perfectly reflect what my supporters think, when on many issues my supporters have differing views with each other.
And, I think it is interesting that the way some people talk here seems to imply that their views are fixed; any new information, or a change in the city’s approach will not alter their perception.
I think it is ok to make use of new information to guide one’s views. I, as I said before, am not all things to all people. I believe that the people that will ultimately support me believe that I will have reasonable, well informed views, and I will be able to work with my fellow council members to move our city in the right direction.
Brett, what puzzles me is the following:
“I think of ‘several’ as something like 2,3, or 4 years.”
That means [b]you would proceed with the surface water project in 2, 3, or 4 years.[/b] Is that true?
followed by Sue Greenwald: “two of his key supporter have assured me that he shares my position on water.”
That is not her position on water. Sue supports delaying the project by many years. So your key supporters are misrepresenting you privately if they say that. Do you support delaying the project by many years — 15 to 25 or more years?
As you can see, the positions are mutually exclusive.
—–
I will assume from davisite lack of response that he has no support for his statement [i]”It has been extrapolated from other studies that it is likely that it would be a minimum of 40 years…”[/i]
Thus we can add that to the growing list of distortions and fabrications put forth by supporters of the referendum. This is becoming very dismaying. Politics ain’t beanbag, as they say, but at least we could stick to the facts and stop making things up.
@E. Roberts Musser 8:26 A.M.[quote] Council member Greenwald is advocating for the city to shop around to hire an expert consultant OTHER THAN TCHOBANOGLOUS AND SHROEDER – shop around for a consultant that would specifically agree with GREENWALD’S position of delay, delay, delay..How many more dollars do you want to add to the surface water project in consulting fees…”[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b] [/quote] 1) Dr. Fogg is the leading ground water specialist. Dr. Tchobanoglous has different areas of expertise. I was suggesting Dr. Fogg as the person to conduct a decent groundwater study, which should be done anyway.
2) The cost of hiring Dr. Fogg is mere budget dust compared to the $300 million already estimated for the capitol costs of the project (yes, you have to add in the East area tank) and the associated Conway water purchase.
3) It is both rude and incorrect to state that I suggested Dr. Fogg’s name because he would be more likely to support phasing in the projects. In fact, I believe that Dr. Fogg is a much stronger supporter of conjunctive use than Dr. Tchobanoglous.
Dr. Tchobanoglous’ report that you referred to was done before the salinity variance process was in place and salinity management review was in place. Dr. Tchobanoglous has never been an ideologue on the timing of the surface water project. He is very, very sensitive to cost/benefit trade-offs.
Elaine, has it ever, for a minute, occurred to you that I am trying to get the most accurate possible information to come to the best possible solution for the city?
[quote]And yes as stated before, I do support the pursuit of surface water rights. — [b]Brett Lee[/b][/quote]Brett, this is the second time I have told you that we already have acquired surface water rights.
[i]”1) Dr. Fogg is the leading ground water specialist. Dr. Tchobanoglous has different areas of expertise.”[/i]
Does he know more than Dr. Cool Mist? I have personally long been in favor of Doctor Sleet.
Seriously for a moment … About half the UCD faculty in Hydrology ([url]http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/directory_faculty_hyd.htm[/url]) is well qualified to testify in regard to the topic.
I would, however, recommend against hiring Dr. Drought.
But a variance is still a permit to continue polluting, helping to degrade the Sacramento Delta, one of the most at risk ecosystems in the state isn’t it?
I am appalled that the city council did not motion for this water mess to be placed on the ballot and decided by the voters. If my vote doesn’t matter in this case, then it certainly shouldn’t matter in June when incumbent council members need my vote for their re-election. They are not going to get it!
@Brett (9:22 am)[quote]So yes, I do support the signature gathering effort for the referendum.[/quote]Brett was tabling with Pam Nieberg at the South Davis Safeway this afternoon. Sounds like “support” really means “actively involved” unless he was just there to keep her company and/or do a little early campaigning.
Bad move Brett. You need better political handlers.
“I will assume from davisite lack of response that he has no support for his statement….”
Don… I have been out gathering signatures so I really do not have the time to reply to your increasingly strident ranting.
@Mr.Toad:[quote]But a variance is still a permit to continue polluting, helping to degrade the Sacramento Delta, one of the most at risk ecosystems in the state isn’t it?[/quote]And isn’t it interesting that a member of the Sierra Club management committee is leading the effort to collect signatures to stop the city’s plan to come into compliance with the clean water regulations?
Both the variance and redesign arguments are code for “its OK to continue polluting the delta.”
[quote]Seriously for a moment … About half the UCD faculty in Hydrology is well qualified to testify in regard to the topic.—[b]Rich Rifkin[/b][/quote]Actually, I don’t think there are very many on the UCD faculty who are specialists in groundwater.
davisite: [i]Don… I have been out gathering signatures so I really do not have the time to reply to your increasingly strident ranting.[/i]
You said [b]”It has been extrapolated from other studies that it is likely that it would be a minimum of 40 years before there was significant drawing down of the deep aquifer.”[/b]
You have not provided a study or link to support your assertion. You made a statement that is either provable or not.
[i]”… a member of the Sierra Club management committee is leading the effort to collect signatures to stop the city’s plan to come into compliance with the clean water regulations?”[/i]
Alan Pryor or Pam Nieberg?
Here is what the Sierra Club Yolano Group’s position on water (2009) says:
“(Davis) is considering spending tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to bring Sacramento River water to Davis. Before it goes down that path, it should take a serious look at meeting its needs through conservation rather than following traditional water policy of ‘let me get mine first’. … each community needs to develop and implement ways that will make conservation the center piece of their water policy.”
Rifkin:
It’s Pam Nieberg.
@David Greenwald (9/19/11):[quote]A senior member of the group organizing the referendum told the Vanguard, “Led by Ernie Head and Pam Nieberg, the Committee for the Protection of Taxpayer Rights is being formed this week.”[/quote]You are quoting from a position paper written by Stan Forbes. He also wrote this is the same paper:[quote]Water usage is elastic. This means that as the price goes up usage goes down. However, for pricing to communicate the value of water to the consumer, its price has to be large enough to get people’s attention.[/quote]I think the projected 2.2X rate increase is probably sufficient to (as the Sierra Club paper says) “communicate the value of water to the consumer.”
Sue: A non-rhetorical question. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that the city was moving forward with your strategy. What is your plan B if the request for a variance is denied?
[quote][I think the projected 2.2X rate increase is probably sufficient to (as the Sierra Club paper says) “communicate the value of water to the consumer.” — [b]Voter 2012[/b][/quote]This is what I have been saying for some time. What concerns me is that, at the rates we will be paying, wealthier ratepayers will start conserving too.
Since we have to collect a fixed amount of money to pay the capital and operating costs, this will shift even more of the burden to those poorer residents who are already trying to save money by conserving. In other words, today better off citizens are paying a larger percentage of fixed costs than low income citizens who are conserving. In essense, they are voluntarily subsidizing the water/sewer costs of low income citizens.
When rates are doubled or tripled (we do not yet know what the true costs will be) to pay for the $300 million of capital improvements and water purchases, the higher income residents will start conserving too. This will negate the cost advantage that low income citizens could gain by conserving. It will negate the cost advantage that anyone will have by conserving.
But a variance is still a permit to continue polluting, helping to degrade the Sacramento Delta, one of the most at risk ecosystems in the state, isn’t it?
@Voter2012: Fair question. We would have to look at our legal options and look at the costs and rates when the bids actually come in, learn more about whether the possible pending storm sewer treatment requirements will material and what the costs of those will be, etc. Then we will have to stop and weigh the costs and the benefits, and decide how hard to pursue our legal options.
Hopefully we will have more data by then.
I am not against proceeding with the project if the costs of phasing it in outweight the benefits.
Mr. Toad: If the SWRCB strongly believed that small town salinity effluent was really a very serious contributor to degradation of the Delta, they would not be preparing a variance program.
But the cumulative impacts on the Delta are a problem are they not? And just to be clear a variance is a permit to pollute isn’t it? So the question becomes are we part of the problem or part of the solution. Or you might say solvent or solute? Are we environmental leaders or just cheap polluters ignoring the opportunity costs of our behavior?
[i]I am not against proceeding with the project if the costs of phasing it in outweight the benefits.
[/i]
Now I’m really confused by your position. You have generally argued that we must postpone the project so that we can “afford” it by paying for the wastewater project first. Now you say that if phasing in shows that it will cost more, then you are not in favor of phasing in”. While not mutually exclusive, these seem to be very different positions on the matter.
[i]My vote in June 2012 will mostly be based on the candidates’ position on the referendum. Thousands more voters will do the same. Steve: you are going to be running on a platform of vastly higher taxes/fees. Good luck. [/i]
Nice Mike. Nothing in here about the candidates taking a difficult leadership position and doing what is right for Davis. Just a prognostication the short term view of voters who don’t take the time to understand the issue. This is exactly what is wrong with politics today – anyone willing to take a tough position is crucified by the soundbite.
[b]Toad[/b]: It is a matter of degree. Every time we breath, we contribute to carbon pollution. Everytime you eat a hamburger, you are contributing the methane pollution. It is all a matter of degree.
@Adam Smith: I don’t understand your confusion. I have never said that we should phase in the projects if we start running into real problems with our groundwater, or if we really face fines larger than the costs of proceeding with the project immediately.
What I have said is that we haven’t exhausted our regulatory remedies, and that we will very likely face serious problems with our future needed school and city taxes if we are paying for $300 million worth of water-related capital projects and the Conaway water purchase, and that our lower-income households will have a very rough time of it.
@ Sue Greenwald:[quote]This is what I have been saying for some time. What concerns me is that, at the rates we will be paying, wealthier ratepayers will start conserving too.[/quote]Heaven forbid! We’d have to pump less ground water, dump less pollution into the delta, and might even have some excess Conaway water to sell on the open market for a profit.
“@Voter2012: Fair question. We would have to look at our legal options and look at the costs and rates when the bids actually come in, learn more about whether the possible pending storm sewer treatment requirements will material and what the costs of those will be, etc. Then we will have to stop and weigh the costs and the benefits, and decide how hard to pursue our legal options.”
Sue: This is not a “Plan B.” What it amounts to is a deferral of hard infrastructure decisions while we pursue a poorly defined legal process.
What legal options? Be specific.
[b]Voter2012[/b]: I tried to answer you in good faith, and you just quoted out-of-context parts of my answers back and ridiculed them. I don’t consider this to be serious discussion.
I would just refer readers back to my comments. I think I made myself perfectly clear.
Just relax, neighbor. Your candidate will win. You can back off.
Sue: Grow up. I asked you a serious question and responded seriously to your response.
@ Voter2012:[quote]Sue: This is not a “Plan B.” What it amounts to is a deferral of hard infrastructure decisions while we pursue a poorly defined legal process.
What legal options? Be specific.[/quote]There was no ridicule. You were not quoted out of context.
And you’ve dodged the answer with your typical dismissive BS.
So let me ask again … Let’s just say for the sake of argument that the city was moving forward with your strategy. What is your Plan B if the request for a variance is denied?
Please be specific.
[quote]jimt: Sounds like studies were conducted in 1990s and prior; why not buy time with a variance and update these studies…
Sue Greenwald:@Jimt: Beautifully stated. And just as I recommended that we hire Dr. George Tchobanoglous to advise us on the wastewater treatment plant, I suggest that we hire Dr. Graham Fogg of UC Davis as the Principle Investigator for the groundwater study.
He is an ardent believer in conjunctive use, so you needn’t worry that he would understate any problems with the groundwater supply.[/quote]
[quote]Sue Greenwald: 3) It is both rude and incorrect to state that I suggested Dr. Fogg’s name because he would be more likely to support phasing in the projects.[/quote]
Your words speak for themselves…
[quote]Dr. Tchobanoglous’ report that you referred to was done before the salinity variance process was in place and salinity management review was in place. Dr. Tchobanoglous has never been an ideologue on the timing of the surface water project. He is very, very sensitive to cost/benefit trade-offs. [/quote]
Dr. Tchobanoglous has NOT endorsed your proposal to delay the surface water project for 25 to 30 years. Dr. Schroeder HAS come out and publicly said he believes the surface water project should be moved forward NOW. Furthermore, both these UCD experts insisted to save money on the wastewater treatment side it was necessary to do the surface water project first and foremost. I haven’t heard either one disavow that initial opinion.
[quote]Sue Greenwald: Elaine, has it ever, for a minute, occurred to you that I am trying to get the most accurate possible information to come to the best possible solution for the city?[/quote]
I believe you believe you are trying to get the most accurate possible information to come to the best possible solution for the city. I just do not believe your opinion is infallible or always right…
[quote]Since we have to collect a fixed amount of money to pay the capital and operating costs, this will shift even more of the burden to those poorer residents who are already trying to save money by conserving. [/quote]
THE CLAIM THAT WATER CONSERVATION WILL NOT HELP A RESIDENT TO REDUCE COSTS IS DISINFORMATION. Some businesses and apartment owners are not going to be able to conserve water. For instance, apartments are not individually metered, and apartment owners are not going to be able to pass all the water rate increase costs onto their renters. Many businesses cannot control how much water they use, and will pass some of those costs onto the customers. Those who can afford the water rate increases without any difficulty may not choose to conserve. That means those who conserve more water will be able to reduce their bills. Secondly, water conservation is also supposed to save the city as a whole costs on the wastewater treatment side.
[quote]davisite2: Don… I have been out gathering signatures so I really do not have the time to reply to your increasingly strident ranting.[/quote]
There was nothing strident nor ranting about Don Shor’s questions. I would say this criticism is strident ranting…
[quote]@Adam Smith: I don’t understand your confusion. I have never said that we should phase in the projects if we start running into real problems with our groundwater, or if we really face fines larger than the costs of proceeding with the project immediately. [/quote]
At what cost to the city/citizens of Davis will you concede your position was unwise? How can you possibly “face fines larger than the costs of proceeding”, but then somehow proceed with the project “immediately”? You will have had to have delayed in order to incur the fines, and then it will be too late to proceed “immediately” or avoid the fines. You cannot have it both ways…
[quote]What I have said is that we haven’t exhausted our regulatory remedies, and that we will very likely face serious problems with our future needed school and city taxes if we are paying for $300 million worth of water-related capital projects and the Conaway water purchase, and that our lower-income households will have a very rough time of it.[/quote]
If the surface water project becomes more costly bc of delay, then there will be less money for school and city taxes and lower-income households will have a much rougher time of it…
[i]”What I have said is that we haven’t exhausted our regulatory remedies, and that we will very likely face serious problems with our future needed school and city taxes if we are paying for $300 million worth of water-related capital projects and the Conaway water purchase, and that our lower-income households will have a very rough time of it.
“[/i]
On this blog there are a list of points addressing the cost/risks for delay. I think we need experts who can refute them – including the regulatory risks/remedies – if we are going to advance the consersation.
I am interested in the detail here. I would love to discover a way out. I have real grass in my front and back yard, and two teenage boys that each take ten showers a week living at home. My water bill is already high.
Although some might assign more weight to the the ecological benefits of the surface water project, this isn’t an ideological debate, it is simply a cost/risk-benefit debate. It either makes economical sense to do this or not. So, let’s use the list provided by Don and find someone that can address each item in favor of a delay or a rejection of a surface water project.
[quote]Although some might assign more weight to the the ecological benefits of the surface water project, this isn’t an ideological debate, it is simply a cost/risk-benefit debate. It either makes economical sense to do this or not. So, let’s use the list provided by Don and find someone that can address each item in favor of a delay or a rejection of a surface water project.[/quote]
This is it in a nutshell…