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