The Clean Water Agency (CWA) had a special meeting to continue the discussion from two weeks ago about two key elements of the Design-Build-Operate process that is paramount to making the water project as affordable as possible.
As the Vanguard has previously reported, there are political and ethical concerns about Veolia, one of three main bidders, who operates a bus line through the occupied territory in Palestine, opening the agency up to concerns by Palestinian rights group about the propriety of doing business with a company that is operating in an area where possible racism and discrimination is occurring.
On the other hand there is United Water, which itself is not the main company, but part of the CH2M Hill “team” that is also bidding to become the choice to design, build, and operate Davis’ water project. United Water faces serious legal issues and an indictment, which claims two of its managers at a Gary, Indiana, plant “intentionally manipulated water quality monitoring results at the facility over a five-year period between 2003 and 2008.”
As we reported previously, “The indictment charges the company with 25 counts of Clean Water Act violations and one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government by tampering with E. coli bacteria monitoring results.”
Clearly, if true, these allegations represent a problem for the Agency. But part of the dilemma they face is that allegations and indictments are not the ultimate finding of fact.
The question that staff posed to the board was whether they needed to expend money and resources to investigate disputes. After all, they argued, there are two sides to every story, but they believe it will be difficult to investigate either matter on their own.
But, particularly with the United Water issue, if it becomes a conviction it would be a different matter, staff pointed out.
However, as Stephen Souza from the Davis City Council pointed out, the charges are substantial and they create tremendous ethical and moral problems if they are true. He said that he is unsure that he wants to go through a process with a company who has done something that we may have to disqualify them for.
One of the questions that emerged is whether the CWA is covered if they have to disqualify either company.
Staff answered that the indictment goes to the issue of qualifications. They said that to the extent that the staff finds this investigation true, that would be a significant factor to consider.
Veolia is a much more difficult problem. Whereas, in United Water, there is a concrete allegation and will be a finding of fact, in Veolia it is a political problem more than a legal one.
Staff argued that Veolia is a much more difficult situation – a slippery slope in terms of trying to evaluate who is right and wrong in that situation.
As Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza asked, is this just a policy call by the board or are there factual questions?
Staff responded that it was a bit of both. The letter from Veolia has factual disagreements in it.
On the other hand, it is not clear, even if the United Water complaint is true, whether that would automatically disqualify them. Staff argued that it would not be a straight-up disqualification, but rather a judgment call as to whether it would push the other two teams ahead.
As Joe Krovoza pointed out, the resolution of these indictments could take years, and that could put the CWA in a very awkward position.
Woodland Councilmember Bill Marble, one of the directors on the board, argued that he is comfortable with the current ethical components for consideration. He argued that he agrees it is a slippery slope with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian debate – one that he does not believe a local agency can or should decide.
The issue is really about providing the best product for the cities of Woodland and Davis.
The Davis Committee for Palestinian Rights (DCPR) submitted their own proposal for ethical guidelines. The group developed “16 principles grouped into four areas of concern: 1) Respect and Care for the Community of Life; 2) Ecological Integrity; 3) Social and Economic Justice; and 4) Democracy, Nonviolence and Peace.”
“For the purposes of the RFP [Request for Proposal] the Proponents have developed a subset of policies and practices derived from the principles of the organizations and global efforts cited above. They are presented here for the CWA Board’s consideration as Policies and Practices for the Ethical Conduct of Business to use as the basis of the development of ethical criteria used to assess the character of the respondents to the RFP,” the group wrote in a memo to the CWA.
Woodland Councilmember Martie Dotie said that, knowing both communities, it is important to both that the companies spending our taxpayer money act responsibly.
However, she also believes we would need to hire all sorts of specialists to enact the ethical guidelines laid out by the DCPR.
She argued that it was not that the CWA shouldn’t say anything, they should say something. She believes self-certification is a good start and becomes important and helpful, particularly if they end up glossing over ethical concerns.
Mayor Krovoza acknowledged he was struggling on the ethical piece as to how they would be able to apply situations that they are dealing with to the criteria that the staff has exposed.
He said he is feeling a bit exposed here and wants to do it right and fair and be sure that they are applying criteria that are appropriate.
The CWA seemed to be overly complicating this, looking into whether they needed to turn this into a quasi-judicial hearing with a $20,000 side consultant to look into those issues.
They have pushed off the main question about ethics until they evaluate the bids in January.
In a way they are being quite unfair, not only to the bidders, but perhaps to citizens in Davis and Woodland, who may object should these concerns – which have yet to be aired in the local newspapers – become more heavily publicized and discussed.
As the second portion of the discussion made clear, this is a five- to ten-million dollar effort on the part of the companies. Now the CWA is asking two of these companies to invest that kind of money in this effort, when Mayor Krovoza acknowledged that the ethical policy and how they would proceed “still feels vague.”
He is also still uncertain what happens with United Water if there are convictions a year from now, and he wondered whether at that time it would be water under the bridge or whether there would be consequences.
To me, it does not make much sense on the part of anyone. And there seemed to be a huge disconnect between this discussion and the discussion as to whether to bring in the No.4 firm to participate in the RFP process.
During that discussion, in which the CWA ultimately took no action, staff vehemently argued against a fourth firm, arguing that the additional firm would increase the uncertainty and discourage the top three firms from fully engaging in the RFP process.
If that is their reasoning for keeping three firms, fine, I understand the arguments that three is somehow a magic number for such consideration.
At the same time, with two firms having ethical clouds hanging over their head, does that not undercut their incentives to compete, not knowing if they are already eliminated due to these ethical issues?
As a final note, Jim Yost made the point that there are only about six firms in this country that could perform the DBO process on this project.
All of this leads to questions about how much competition there really is going to be here, and whether the CWA is doing all it can to hold down costs on the project.
The CWA argues that the DBO process is the best and most efficient process to accomplish this. However, as many have questioned, why are we asking private companies to provide what should be public goods, in a water issue?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
Having come late to educating myself on this issue, I ask for your forbearance with
some questions that may have been previously addressed:
1) Is there an efficient “public alternative” to providing “what should be public goods in water.”?
2) If such an option exists, what are the relative short and long term costs?
3) Would all involved parties be amenable to such an option, or is the DBO process a compromise that has already been decided upon in the process of getting everyone to move forward.
4) If it is true that there are only six firms capable of this kind of project, and these were the top three, what was the basis for exclusion of the other three. Lack of interest on their part? Unacceptable proposal? Even worse ethical or political complications?
Isn’t East Bay MUD (EBMUD) an example of public?
Davis, Woodland and the Water JPA should park this project until after the June 2012 elections and not spend another dime of taxpayer money.
The Davis referendum is expected to handily qualify in a few days, which will stay the huge rate increases until the election.
We also believe that the Prop 218 Notice was not followed in the final rate tablulations in the ordinance, and probably is subject to legal challenges that would tie it up in the courts for years.
Additionally, there is a team working on a Davis rate reduction initiative that will certainly qualify for the June ballot.
Finally, when the voters of Woodland see what Davis voters are doing, I believe there is a strong possibility that you will see a Woodland referendum after their next huge rate increase, and/or an initiative.
So long as these legal challenges are pending, the project cannot be funded, and the bond sale process will be halted.
Direct democracy is so relevant today!
Please sign a petition to put the referendum on the ballot; we only have a few more days!
[quote]The Davis Committee for Palestinian Rights (DCPR) submitted their own proposal for ethical guidelines. The group developed “16 principles grouped into four areas of concern: 1) Respect and Care for the Community of Life; 2) Ecological Integrity; 3) Social and Economic Justice; and 4) Democracy, Nonviolence and Peace.”[/quote]
Now why should we allow the DCPR to dictate terms of the surface water project?
[quote]As the Vanguard has previously reported, there are political and ethical concerns about Veolia, one of three main bidders, who operates a bus line through the occupied territory in Palestine, opening the agency up to concerns by Palestinian rights group about the propriety of doing business with a company that is operating in an area where possible racism and discrimination is occurring.[/quote]
It is my understanding Veolia runs Yolobus. Is there some push out there to boycott Yolobus because it is run by Veolia? Not that I know of. Secondly, since when do Palestinians have a lock on All Things Right and Relevant? Their hands are hardly clean, but rather dripping with the blood of innocents, since they are involved with terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Before the City of Davis decides to exclude Veolia bc of “racism”/”discrimination”, how many of Veolia’s critics purchase goods made in third world countries that have sweat shops manned by children; goods from China which is a notorious human rights violator? Why would Veolia doing business in Israel disqualify Veolia to do business here, when China and other third world countries who are human rights violators are not disqualified one iota to do business here? Such a hypocritical political stand makes no logical sense.
[quote]The CWA argues that the DBO process is the best and most efficient process to accomplish this. However, as many have questioned, why are we asking private companies to provide what should be public goods, in a water issue?[/quote]
As has been pointed out by others (I think Rich Rifkin was instrumental in discussing this issue), the question becomes one of economy. If it will result in runaway salaries/benefits of public employees, it may NOT make ECONOMIC sense to have the surface water project run by local go’vt. On the other hand, in light of the charges against United Water, it is extremely important to have some sort of gov’t oversight. Not knowing very much about this issue, I think I am leaning towards some sort of hybrid model, that may allow a private company to run the project, but with strict gov’t oversight written into the contract as a minimum. I certainly have no problem exploring the idea of the surface water project being run by the local go’vt, but my guess is that will be an overly expensive way to go. But I don’t know that for a FACT. So I am keeping an open mind on this issue…
[quote]We also believe that the Prop 218 Notice was not followed in the final rate tablulations in the ordinance, and probably is subject to legal challenges that would tie it up in the courts for years. [/quote]
Substantiation please?
[quote]Isn’t East Bay MUD (EBMUD) an example of public?[/quote]
Good question. Can anyone verify/give info? Especially costs to ratepayers/track record with respect to problems or no?
“So long as these legal challenges are pending, the project cannot be funded, and the bond sale process will be halted.”
Michael left out the most important part of the strategy …
And the referendum-backed candidate(s) being supported by Harrington’s “Committee to Foment a Rate Payer Revolt” will roll to victory on a wave of freshly-minted polarization and anti-government anger — the school bond being unfortunate collateral damage.
“the school bond being unfortunate collateral damage.”
Once again, please explain. Most think that the school bond would have a much better chance of passing if higher water rates weren’t going to be part of the equation.
[i]”I think I am leaning towards some sort of hybrid model, that may allow a private company to run the project, but with strict gov’t oversight written into the contract as a minimum”[/i]
Elaine, I am with you on this. A public-private partnership with a strong contract is the way to go. We cannot afford to have it managed and operated by the public sector prone to paying over-market wages and retirement at age 55 with near full pension and healthcare coverage.
The contract should include operator performance criteria and some financial incentive to meet them.
[quote]The contract should include operator performance criteria and some financial incentive to meet them. [/quote]
That is exactly along the lines I was thinking…
ERM wrote: “Substantiation please?”
You’ll see it in the court papers if we are forced that way. If the repeal is approved by the Voters in June 2012, you will never hear another word about this.
Why is everyone so gung-ho pushing this shangri-law dream known as public private partnership? These deals usually mean soak the public for the private owners. I like our city staff and believe that they will do a good job with following direction from the voters when they speak in June. Our staff know how to evaluate our long term use of the well system; it’s just that they have been told by CC majorities to only go with surface water for the past 15 years. Clean, safe water is a classic governmental function, and I am totally opposed sharing it with private companies.
“Once again, please explain.”
rusty49: The surface water debate will continue until June2012 unless Harrington and his crew fails to qualify the referendum/initiative and stands down. This will have (and it may already be too late) the practical effect transforming a 14% rate hike at the end of the year into a hyper-contentious debate unlike anything since Measure X. The school tax was on the cusp last time, and IMO there is no credible scenario where a supermajority can be assembled in this type of environment.
What Harrington is doing is translating the gridlock created by Measure J/R into the area of public infrastructure. Measure J/R had the effect of increasing property values. In contrast, gridlock in the area of public infrastructure will have the affect of decreasing property values, particularly if (as I believe) this manufactured rate payer revolt spreads to school and park taxes.
And Michael’s argument that his hands are clean because the clueless council majority is to blame for the bad timing is just self-serving rationalization.
Voter2012 wrote: “Michael left out the most important part of the strategy … And the referendum-backed candidate(s) being supported by Harrington’s “Committee to Foment a Rate Payer Revolt” will roll to victory on a wave of freshly-minted polarization and anti-government anger — the school bond being unfortunate collateral damage.”
“There you go again ….”
Back to the school parcel tax renewal being collateral damage? One, it’s totally illogical. Pushing the rate hikes BACK to 3 months after the March 2012 school parcel tax renewal ensures that votes get to take things one at a time, with the absolutely essential school tax being considered first.
Second, your shop-worn phrase hangs out there with no support. You say it over and over, without any justification.
When I was in law school, a friend was the editor of a newsletter and opinion rag, “Ipse Dixit,” meaning “Because I say so.”
Say something with logic, and more will listen to you.
“particularly if (as I believe) this manufactured rate payer revolt spreads to school and park taxes.”
Nothing manufactured about it at all my friend. Almost 5000 of the 218 forms were sent back in which was pretty phenomenal considering that at the time there wasn’t really any organized opposition.
“Pushing the rate hikes BACK to 3 months after the March 2012 school parcel tax renewal ensures that votes get to take things one at a time, with the absolutely essential school tax being considered first.”
Do you seriously think the voters are just going to “forget” that water infrastructure is on the horizon when they vote on the parcel tax? Now who’s being clueless.
Voter2012 wrote: “Measure J/R had the effect of increasing property values.”
Wow, someone said it. You mean that the progressives in this town saved the real estate industry and homeowners with the original hard-fought Measure J? It won 55/45, but it was actually darned close to the wire. The developers poured resources into the campaign on the last week.
Now we know a bit more about Voter2012.
Surrounding jurisdictions are down 50-60% in prices since the peak; Davis is down about 25-30%. Credit the progressives, people. Deliver the thank you wine to their next party. What is that 25% spread worth? I’m sure that Joel Butler at the County Assessor’s Office could tell us.
Voter2012: I am absolutely certain to my bones that in a couple of years all of the town will look back on this surface water project, as currently formulated and funded, as the iceberg that we barely missed when the voters knocked it down in June. This project has all of the makings, and feel, of the UCD Homeland Security Bioleval 4 lab that was defeated; no one misses it.
Water is different, of course, but we are going to have the world’s best, most progressive, least cost, and locally owned and controlled water system when the dust settles down next year.
[i] probably is subject to legal challenges that would tie it up in the courts for years. [/i]
Are you saying that [i]you personally[/i] would challenge it in court and cost the City of Davis thousands of dollars in legal fees?
[i]You’ll see it in the court papers if we are forced that way.[/i]
Nobody is ever forced to make a legal challenge. Are you saying that [i]you personally[/i] would challenge it in court and personally cause the City of Davis thousands of dollars in legal fees?
Voter2012: OK, now i see where you are coming from. You think that our beef with the water plant will translate into a community wide funding shut down, a taxpayer’s revolt? I dont have a crystal ball, but my experience with Davis is the voters are generally really in touch with community issues, they separate them, vote by vote. If I shared your sense that a wide revolt is coming, I can see your point exactly. But I dont share you worries, valid as they may be.
[i]my experience with Davis is the voters are generally really in touch with community issues, they separate them, vote by vote.[/i]
I agree. That is why I think the impact of water rates on the parcel taxes is negligible.
[i]”Why is everyone so gung-ho pushing this shangri-law dream known as public private partnership?”[/i]
Because it optimizes the natural performance strength of each domain. Private operators/service providers are more efficient because they have to compete for business. Also, they have access to a larger pool of qualified resources and leverage economies of scale investing in more modern tools to do the job. A little city like ours is oven resource and tool-constrained. However, after the private company inks a contract, their management-focus can shift to the next sale and away from the ongoing operations of existing accounts. This is where the public partnership makes sense. The public side needs a well-written and well-managed contract/agreement that provide financial incentives for the private contractor to perform.
Private companies consider this domain strengh determination and routinely contract for outside services. For example, most large companies contract for their cafeteria operation to other companies providing the service.
You make a point that a water works project should be a common domain of expertise and resource for a city like Davis. That might be the case, but I doubt we could build and operate a project of this scale as efficiently as could a reputable private company assuming we do a good job managing the ongoing contract. If you support a public-only approach for this, then it is likely you are doing so to be friendly to the public-sector employee union.
[i]”oven resource”[/i]
s/b “often resource”
Although we are possibly oven-resource contrained too.
“Do you seriously think the voters are just going to “forget” that water infrastructure is on the horizon when they vote on the parcel tax? Now who’s being clueless.”
Voter2012: I dont have a crystal ball, but I can assure you, double-guarantee you, that if the voters are looking at a huge rate hike in the water bill sitting on the “things to pay later because I dont have any cash right now,” those voters are going to knock down the school parcel taxes 55/45.
The only chance those parcel tax renewals have is if the voters dont have to deal with the wate rates fist.
Voter2012 and the rest of you who are not tabling, knocking on doors with the signature petitions: you ahve no clue how bad it is out there for the public. Their finances are devasted, nearly across the board. Seniors, rents, and low to middle income persons are looking for us, demanding to sign the petitions. I have never seen anything like it in local politics.
I wish we could post our tabling and walking/knocking routes and timing, but it seems to attract that species of wildlife called “blockers.” So just look for us in all the usual places, or call or email me for information.
I get Voter2012’s point about the campaign to stay the surface water project impacting the parcel tax vote. It comes down to trust. Those leading the effort to gather signatures are doing so leveling claims that city government is corrupt and incompetent. That is not a great message to send to voters being asked to trust the city that they should continue to tax themselves more for education services.
Voter apathy and anger when enflamed can lead to more “no” votes or more no shows.
Michael: Yes. Measure J/R was a great victory for the progressives. That’s why it is so tragic to see you continuing to give the broader progressive community a bad name in pursuit of your own agenda. I am absolutely certain to my bones that in a couple of years all we will see (if you are successful) is escalating fines, legal costs, stop-gap infrastructure expenditures, and failed bond measures as we try to mitigate the train wreck you architected.
[quote]ERM wrote: “Substantiation please?”
Michael Harrington: You’ll see it in the court papers if we are forced that way[/quote]
In other words no substantiation as of yet?
@ Michael Harrington: “Voter2012: I dont have a crystal ball, but I can assure you, double-guarantee you, that if the voters are looking at a huge rate hike in the water bill sitting on the “things to pay later because I dont have any cash right now,” those voters are going to knock down the school parcel taxes 55/45.”
Michael: Thanks to you and your crew the voters are going to be [u]looking at[/u] a nominal 14% increase in their water bill [u]but seeing[/u] a half billion dollar infrastructure project that is being dishonestly marketed as a $155M bait-and-switch project, a collaborative effort with a deadbeat partner that is going to leave us holding the bag, a corrupt effort by water consultants to rip-off the rate payers enabled by a clueless CC majority … and the list goes on.
IMO they are going to vote no on anything and everything that comes down the pike. That’s why it was so irresponsible for you, as a former council member, to demagogue this issue.
“leveling claims that city government is corrupt”
No, I have not said that. Have I mentioned bribes? No.
I have said clearly that some local elected officials take huge amounts of campaign cash from these interested parties and vendors, and you can conclude what you want.
ERM: you are an attorney, right? Why would you think I would waste a moment, or a dollar, on court matters if we never reach them? When you represent a client, I am sure that you would not contemplate going to court, even if you had a clear right, unless you had to.
Voter 2012 wrote: ” … in pursuit of your own agenda. I am absolutely certain to my bones that in a couple of years all we will see (if you are successful) is escalating fines, legal costs, stop-gap infrastructure expenditures, and failed bond measures as we try to mitigate the train wreck you architected.”
If you keep saying those unsubstantiated things often enough, maybe you will believe them?
Your weakness is that the grond water system is recharging itself (admitted to me by senior city staff), and our current system is safe and effective and cost efficient for some years into the future. So your “the sky is falling” Helen Thompson-isk argument (Oct 2005, attempt to support immediate need for Covell Village) lacks factual or legal support.
We have time to study this, fund as needed, and get it right. The first time.
[i]”[ground] water system is recharging itself… and our current system is safe and effective and cost efficient for some years into the future”[/i]
Quick… somebody find me some qualified experts that will confirm this (on record… including their real name) and I will sign the darn petition!
Otherwise it is just Ipse Dixit.
Voter 2012 wrote: “Michael: Thanks to you and your crew the voters are going to be looking at a nominal 14% increase in their water bill but seeing a half billion dollar infrastructure project that is being dishonestly marketed as a $155M bait-and-switch project, a collaborative effort with a deadbeat partner that is going to leave us holding the bag, a corrupt effort by water consultants to rip-off the rate payers enabled by a clueless CC majority … and the list goes on.”
You read my mind. This is the best post from you I have ever read.
The 14% rate increase is false, by itself. It all goes downhill rapidly from that start.
“You read my mind. This is the best post from you I have ever read.
The 14% rate increase is false, by itself. It all goes downhill rapidly from that start.”
Great. So we’re in sync. If the school tax goes down … you own it.
[i]Your weakness is that the grond water system is recharging itself (admitted to me by senior city staff)[/i]
Provably false. The current aquifers are being overdrafted. Subsidence is already occurring. I have provided the evidence.
[i]and our current system is safe and effective and cost efficient for some years into the future.[/i]
Right up until 2017, when the water violates quality standards.
There is one great letter in the Enterprise today in support of the surface water project. I wrote the other one. Seems like the real grassroots need here is to combat the all the disinformation coming from the paid army of the politically-motivated.
How about a chart that lists the 50-year costs/benefits of plan a and plan b? I will help pay for any flyers or posters. I think the high percentage of computer brains in this town might appreciate a well-done, fact-filled comparison.
“The only chance those parcel tax renewals have is if the voters dont have to deal with the wate rates fist. “
It is clear that Mike Harrington must think Davis voters are all stupid. (And once again he slips in accusations about “blockers” which were investigated and found to be false.) The City has been very clear about what is going on with this project. Every household received information repeatedly and even a special mailing inviting us to protest the rate increases. I suspect that there is a candidate(s) out there that he supports and needs an issue – an election defining issue – that his candidate(s) can ride the coattails of into office.
[i]Second, your shop-worn phrase hangs out there with no support. You say it over and over, without any justification.
When I was in law school, a friend was the editor of a newsletter and opinion rag, “Ipse Dixit,” meaning “Because I say so.”
Say something with logic, and more will listen to you.
[/i]
Amazing that this was written by you, instead of to you. If only you walked the talk.
[quote]Provably false. The current aquifers are being overdrafted. Subsidence is already occurring. I have provided the evidence. — [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]According to what Rich Rifkin posted on this blog, this is what Dr. Graham Fogg says on the matter:[quote][b]Rich Rifkin[/b]: How many years will the deep aquifer last?
[b]Graham Fogg[/b]: “It’s best to think of it as an “aquifer system” rather than an aquifer, because most of it consists of a complex network of aquifer materials (sands and gravels) and non-aquifer materials (silts and clays), and the latter are by far most prevalent. The groundwater levels appear to be recovering more or less fully every year following the dry season, indicating it is not yet in overdraft with respect to water quantity. In most any city where groundwater is the sole source of drinking water and landscape water, however, it is possible for demand to grow to the point that groundwater overdraft occurs.
[b]Rich Rifkin:[/b] Will we have advanced warning before the aquifer dries up?[b]
Graham Fogg[/b]: The changes in groundwater quality will not be sudden, but will likely continue on a decades to centuries time scale.
[/quote]Dr. Fogg is most certainly an expert. He is an ardent supporter of conjunctive use. But his comments would seem to be consistent with either the current approach or the approach I am suggesting in terms of aquifer supply, since I am proposing to assure that everything is in place to proceed quickly if we run into supply problems.
Sue, the intermediate aquifers are overdrafted. Your plan continues heavy reliance on those as we switch to the deep aquifers. Increased use of the deep aquifers is likely to overdraft them. City of Davis wells would compete with UCD wells.
And there are other concerns:
“The deep aquifer is believed connected to the upper intermediate aquifer and pumping could result in drawing contaminants from higher elevations into the deep wells as well as additional ground subsidence and loss of aquifer capacity.” — Ed Schroeder
You do not have an expert saying that increased pumping from the deep aquifers is a responsible or reliable approach. I am very curious how we would “proceed quickly” to a surface water system if we abandon Woodland, fail to sign contracts, don’t begin construction, pay to shift to deep wells, continue pumping from the intermediate aquifers, and then decide many years down the road that we want to get the surface water. It is almost a certainty that we would have to start from scratch, and somehow do the project on our own at that point. Unless you are advocating that Woodland abandon the surface water project as well.
Jeff: [i]How about a chart that lists the 50-year costs/benefits of plan a and plan b?[/i]
I would be more than happy to help put together such a chart, and I could even see how proponents and opponents could work together on it.
Only problem: there is definitely a Plan A. But there isn’t just one Plan B. I think I know what Sue is advocating. But I don’t know what David Greenwald, Brett Lee, or Mike Harrington (among others) are advocating.
[quote]Sue, the intermediate aquifers are overdrafted…….
You do not have an expert saying that increased pumping from the deep aquifers is a responsible or reliable approach.– [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, first you criticize me for lacking “named” experts to support the contention that postponing the project for about twenty years would be feasible from supply perspective (with the ability to go forward if we run into problems).
Then, you contradict the leading groundwater expert who says that the aquifer is not in overdraft at the current time.
Then, you shift the goalposts and say that I need to find an expert who will who will actually advocate for postponing the project.
But postponing the project would be a fiscally-based decision. Your new demand would be tantamount to insisting that we get the firefighters to say that postponing a fourth fire-station is a “responsible or reliable approach” before we do so.
The intermediate aquifers are clearly in overdraft.
The deep aquifer might not be.
For about the fourth time over several days, I will post verbatim exactly what I have been asking, cut-and-pasted again. NO change in goal posts.
[b]Now I would appreciate it if anybody would post a link or quote from any expert in the field:
who believes that the deep aquifer is a sustainable or preferable alternative,
who endorses delaying or canceling the surface water project,
who believes we are likely to be able to succeed in arguing for a higher salinity discharge limit.[/b]
Any expert. Any of those. Seriously.
We are waiting for an answer to Don Shor’s question.
We do have easy access to someone that is (1) qualified to have an expert opinion on the likelihood that we can get a discharge variance, and (2) willing to speak on the record.
His name is Joe Krovoza.
Remember, Joe started his career as a water attorney and spent many years working on legal issues related to Putah Creek. Although he is obviously not professionally engaged in water law at the present time, he is certainly qualified to read the relevant literature and form an expert opinion.
Unfortunately, I can’t find a quote from Joe on this specific issue. Does anyone else have something?
Sadly I have a big project with a deadline at 9am GMT on Wednesday (that’s 2am PDT), so I cannot take part in the water works fun, today.
But for those who are interested, my column is available on The Davis Enterprise website ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/any-water-solution-is-costly/[/url]). It will be published in print, tomorrow. Not surprisingly, I write about the water question.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1xSejjN2EnE/TmVCfqfNn0I/AAAAAAAAAfc/7jY8zgciqLM/s1600/lexicon+artist.bmp[/img]
Cut to the chase:
Experts & City Council Majority: Surface water project is necessary.
Sue: ‘The State will let us off the hook, trust me’
Michael: ‘If I don’t win, I will sue’
Have I missed anything?
[b]Ryan Kelly[/b]: Please reread my post carefully. If we work with the WRCB to get a salinity variance and work out a schedule with them whereby we can retire the debt on all or most of our wastewater treatment plant and early stages of our surface water project before we finish the surface water project, and if we buy our easements and continue to prepare for the project — then the leading expert in the field has spoken on supply.
Putting aside for a moment whether or not you want to complete the project now, I ask you theoretically, where is the risk? If we apply for and get regulatory approval, if we are ready to proceed if we run into problems, and if we are not in overdraft and probably have decades to centuries of water supply left, then where is the risk?
I can well understand why people from the half of our households that have over $60,000 a year in income might want a mix that has more river water in it, but I don’t understand where the perceived risk of a more frugal and measured approach is.
[i]if we are ready to proceed if we run into problems,
[/i]
Again, please explain your plan for this.
[i]if we are not in overdraft and probably have decades to centuries of water supply left[/i]
A complete distortion.
[i]…the leading expert in the field has spoken on supply.[/i]
“In most any city where groundwater is the sole source of drinking water and landscape water, however, it is possible for demand to grow to the point that groundwater overdraft occurs. In that case, the aquifer system would not dry up and blow away, but there would be more severe restrictions on water use, like vastly reducing landscape watering” — Dr. Fogg.
You would be taking a course of action which would create a drought in Davis.
How many deep wells are we going to need, Sue, in the 20 – 25 years that you say we are going to wait to start the surface project?
How many of the current intermediate aquifer wells, which are overdrafting that aquifer, will be replaced with deep aquifer wells?
How will we develop the infrastructure 20 – 25 years from now if Woodland goes it alone?
What is your Plan B?
Don, you might not want to accept it, but the expert said that we were not in overdraft and that “changes in groundwater quality will not be sudden, but will likely continue on a decades to centuries time scale.”
That means that there is no emergency if we can get regulatory relief through the salinity variance process. Again, that means there is no emergency.
As I have said in previous posts, I don’t know where you get the idea that we will need a huge number of new wells if we attain a salinity variance and perhaps end up negotiating another ten year extension after the new salinity management program is in effect. That, after all, is the reason that the salinity variance program was initiated.
We are currently in compliance on selenium. If we get slightly higher limits in our next permit, the two additional planned deep aquifer wells will probably handle the required dilution. But throw in three more wells if you want. At $3 million apiece, that would come to only one year’s interest on the surface water project.
And as I explained to you the other day, Woodland would want us to buy in to their project when we are ready because they really, really need the rate relief. Just as we will not turn the University down if they decide to buy in later, Woodland would not turn us own if we wanted to buy in later. It wouldn’t be in their best interest.
Don and friends, I can respect your decision to support the completion of $300 million of water-related capitol improvements and purchases simultaneously. No doubt it will be a good thing for those who can afford it.
But there is no reason to dismiss out of hand another realistic option just because you don’t like it.
Don,
My quote from Graham Fogg is not a distortion at all. Dr. Fogg says that the surface water project is a good thing and something we should do, but he makes it crystal clear that it isn’t an emergency.
In fact, he adds that he thinks it is important to secure surface water [i][b]” Especially if that can be accomplished reasonably economically.”[/b][/i] All I am doing is suggesting a way to complete the project in a reasonably affordable fashion.
(In fact, we have already secured our river water rights, which is a good thing. The question of whether or not to phase the project is a pragmatic financial consideration.
$300 million of debt is just an awful lot of debt for a town of $65,000 to take on at one time.
Typo I mean: $300 million of debt is just an awful lot of debt for a town of 65,000 to take on at one time.
I am guessing Dr. Fogg would be startled to learn he is endorsing your plan to shift to deep aquifer wells and hold off on the water project for 20 to 25 years. Because the fact is that there is not a single expert who has publicly stated that you have made a reasonable proposal.
Davis draws water from 20 wells.
16 are drawing from intermediate aquifers. They will violate water standards in 2017.
4 are drawing from deep aquifers. Those will not violate water standards.
UC Davis also draws from the deep aquifers.
2 of the wells (east Davis) have manganese levels high enough to require wellhead treatment.
Since 1987 Davis has had to retire 8 wells; several more will have to be replaced in the next few years if the surface water project is not brought on line. If in fact the city delays, per your plan, for 20 or more years, many or most of the existing wells will reach the end of their useful lives and need to be replaced. Some can’t even be repaired now due to subsidence.
Significant subsidence is already occurring.
Well casings are being damaged.
You propose to continue pumping water, continue causing subsidence, continue damaging well casings.
When wells have to be replaced, Davis has to choose between drilling into the intermediate aquifers which are being overdrafted (and which produce water that violates the standards), or drilling into the deep aquifer which UCDavis draws from.
So it is almost a certainty, if we follow your proposal, that the City of Davis will have to drill several wells, probably many, into the deep aquifer within the 20+-year time frame that you propose delaying the surface project. Your notion that five wells will take care of it has no basis.
Then, having sunk all those costs, you admit that the city will have to go to the surface water project anyway.
Further drilling into the deep aquifer risks contamination.
Further drilling into the deep aquifer risks overdrafting that aquifer. I have a previous expert state clearly to the Chancellor in a memo that “the deep aquifer does not recharge.” Dr. Fogg says that it appears to. The lack of nitrate and lack of tritium tells us that it does not recharge from the surface, so the mechanism of recharge is not understood. Yet you are prepared to take any number of extraordinary gambles in order to postpone the cost of the surface project.
If the surface project is built, none of that is necessary. That is why nearly everyone who looks at these options comes to the conclusion that the surface water project should be brought on line soon. The surface project solves the water quality problem, guarantees a long-term source of water, ends the subsidence problem, eliminates the need to replace wells, and costs less in the long run than your proposal.
[i]No doubt it will be a good thing for those who can afford it.[/i]
Just for the record, this is going to cost me a lot more than it is going to cost you, and I guarantee my income is substantially lower than yours.
Don, I didn’t say that Dr. Fogg endorsed anything. Please read my posts.
The costs of some new wells are already factored into our project costs. We will be maintaining a groundwater system alongside the surface water project anyway.
So we will need a few extra wells over a twenty year period at $3 million apiece over and above the new wells that we will need with the surface water project. The surface water project will cost $10 million a year.
The well issue is a red herring.
[quote]Just for the record, this is going to cost me a lot more than it is going to cost you, and I guarantee my income is substantially lower than yours.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I am not talking about myself. I am looking at the affordability for people below the median income, for seniors on fixed incomes, for the effect that this will have on restaurants, for the effect that this will have on the city’s ability to pass taxes, etc.
I think that in the future you are going to look back on this and see that the costs are higher than you had anticipated and that these costs will have a more profound effect than you had anticipated.
You keep saying that the wells will violate standards in 2017. Our permit expires this year and we don’t even have our next permit yet. Our biggest problem is salinity, and I all I am suggesting is that we work hard to get a salinity variance through the process that is being set up.
If we get relief on the salinity, our well situation changes.
It would seem that by postponing a surface water project, we may indeed risk a drought situation in the future if significant problems arise with the deep aquifer (substantial subsidence, water quality degradation, overdraft)
However, if the current version of the SWP is approved at current projected costs; could this not effectively bring on a drought for low-income residents? With water costs increasing to >2X current prices and ongoing recession (my best guess the current era of national to local economic troubles will likely take on an even more ‘austere’ nature over the next decade or so), many of the lower income people in Davis may ratchet back on lawn and garden watering. Those with more money will still be able to afford nice lush lawns and gardens, though, helping to further distinguish higher income neighborhoods from low income areas…
From the technical perspective of aquifer integrity and usefulness, it may be that the most serious risk associated with delaying some sort of surface water project and pumping the deep aquifers is subsidence: not only because of damage to buildings, roads, and other infrastructure; but also because subsidence results in a permanent degradation of aquifers: the lost pore space underground cannot be recovered even if pumping rates are reduced in the future and water levels recover. With reduced pore space, there is reduced subsurface storage, and tighter grain packing resulting in deeper cones of depression near wells and more energy expenditure to extract the same amount of groundwater.
Unfortunately, these effects are permanent and cannot be reversed; all future generations will inherit this degraded aquifer system.
This is the main factor that makes me hesitant about eliminating any possibility of a SWP; however delaying for a few years should be OK. More detailed investigation on how serious the subsidence is that has already occurred, and how serious it is likely to be with increased pumping of the deep aquifer, may be warranted.
Is the problem with Veolia just political? Read these and decide:
[url]http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/8367750/download?secret_password=23b7hyd4y93anms19dar[/url]
[url]http://www.citizen.org/documents/Veolia vs Veracity.pdf[/url]
[url]www.citizen.org/documents/waves.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.novatoflow.org/shame.html[/url]
[i]I think that in the future you are going to look back on this and see that the costs are higher than you had anticipated and that these costs will have a more profound effect than you had anticipated.[/i]
Pointless, since you have frequently acknowledged that we are going to have to pay for the surface water project anyway. Your proposal is not to cancel it, your proposal is to delay it.
[i]You keep saying that the wells will violate standards in 2017. Our permit expires this year and we don’t even have our next permit yet. Our biggest problem is salinity, and I all I am suggesting is that we work hard to get a salinity variance through the process that is being set up. [/i]
The variance would not change the fact that we are violating standards in 2017. It would simply change the timetable for coming into compliance.
jimt:[i] if the current version of the SWP is approved at current projected costs; could this not effectively bring on a drought for low-income residents?[/i]
The project is going to be built eventually. The impact on low-water-use residents depends on how the rates are structured.
Subsidence is already occurring. Sue is proposing that we continue to overdraft the intermediate aquifers, increasing subsidence. The surface water project solves that problem.
Damaging the aquifers reduces our future ability to implement conjunctive use, among other problems. It is a shortsighted strategy that is harmful to the resource.
[quote]ERM: you are an attorney, right? Why would you think I would waste a moment, or a dollar, on court matters if we never reach them? When you represent a client, I am sure that you would not contemplate going to court, even if you had a clear right, unless you had to. [/quote]
In other words unsubstantiated…
[quote]Sue Greenwal: Don, I didn’t say that Dr. Fogg endorsed anything. Please read my posts. [/quote]
Your words Sue:
[quote]Dr. Fogg is most certainly an expert…But his comments would seem to be consistent with… the approach I am suggesting in terms of aquifer supply, since I am proposing to assure that everything is in place to proceed quickly if we run into supply problems.[/quote]
[quote]The costs of some new wells are already factored into our project costs….
So we will need a few extra wells over a twenty year period at $3 million apiece…
The well issue is a red herring. [/quote]
The well issue is a “red herring”? Or an inconvenient truth…
[quote]Sue Greenwald: In fact, he adds that he thinks it is important to secure surface water ” Especially if that can be accomplished reasonably economically.” All I am doing is suggesting a way to complete the project in a reasonably affordable fashion. [/quote]
Reasonably economically? Reasonably affordable fashion? If we delay, construction/finance costs are likely to increase as the economy rebounds; as subsidence occurs the cost of new wells will have to borne; a crumbling infrastructure will have to be maintained; if we are not in compliance it is likely mandatory fines will come into play; etc, etc etc – all adding inordinate costs to the surface water project. Dr. Fogg is not saying YOUR WAY is the more AFFORDABLE APPROACH.
[quote](In fact, we have already secured our river water rights, which is a good thing.[/quote]
And if slept on, we could lose them, especially in the current world where water has become a very valuable commodity everyone is vying for…
One of the first water battles I became aware of when I moved here in 1974 was the one sparked by East Bay Municipal Utility District trying to take American River water. It sparked a legal battle over water rights that was settled in 2001. The settlement shifted their water source to the Sacramento River. Water rights that aren’t used are not permanent.
As I’ve said before, EBMUD is the greatest long-term threat to Sacramento River water. They don’t have adequate supplies. In a drought, water restrictions are imposed in Lafayette and Walnut Creek and other Contra Costa communities by the second year. Meanwhile, Solano County cities can go six years of drought, thanks to Lake Berryessa water.
[url]http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-01-16/bay-area/17579194_1_sacramento-river-water-war-dry-years[/url]
It is also worth noting that UCDavis is managing their water supply to provide for their expansion (West Village) by bringing in Solano surface water for ten years, in order to reduce the impact on the deep wells. It is their expectation that they will then be able to tie in to the Davis/Woodland water project.
Is there water quality data for the Sacramento River supply that the SWP is working to secure? I might have missed it in the numerous documents posted on the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency website. A commenter to this website posted concern about water quality at this reach of the Sacramento River as it is just downstream of discharges from the Colusa Basin Drain. The Schroeder Tchobanoglous study does note that the Sacramento River water does contain trace concentrations of agricultural chemicals which may or may not need to be removed. For the sake of discussion, here’s the latest impaired water body information on Colusa Basin Drain from the State Water Resource Control Board website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/01211.shtml#13066
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Ryan Kelly: Please reread my post carefully. If we work with the WRCB to get a salinity variance and work out a schedule with them whereby we can retire the debt on all or most of our wastewater treatment plant and early stages of our surface water project before we finish the surface water project, and if we buy our easements and continue to prepare for the project — then the leading expert in the field has spoken on supply.”[/i]
Sue, you continue to hang your hat on salinity which is really a minor issue when compared to the selenium issue that we have to deal with if the surface water project does not go forward (leaving us with high selenium content well water as the input source to our wastewater treatment plant.
To quote an expert I have consulted:
[b][i]”Selenium is a real problem for treatment. The chemistry is very similar to sulfur and there is a good deal more sulfur to compete for things like adsorption sites. When the Kesterson Reservoir problem appeared a great deal of research was done on selenium removal with little results. The discharge requirement of 5 micrograms per liter is very, very tough. I think Reverse Osmosis will do that and would also address salinity, but as you noted that would raise other issues such as brine disposal.”[/i][/b]
So Sue, what is your plan for dealing with the SWRCB requirement for selenium if we continue to use well water as our water source?
Mike Harrington, you may want to provide your answer to this major problem as well.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”We are currently in compliance on selenium.”[/i]
Sue, you appear to be at odds with the information Dr. Schroeder published in the Enterprise on August 29th. Please see Dr. Schroeder’s bolded words below.
[i]”August 29, 2011 | Posted by Special to The Enterprise
Better water is needed, now
By Ed Schroeder
In mid-2008, my faculty colleague, George Tchobanoglous, and I were asked by the Davis City Council to review the city’s Water Resources Master Plan. George is currently out of the country and therefore comments in this piece are mine alone.
The council was particularly interested in responses to two questions: Do alternative solutions exist that have not been considered, and can water supply and wastewater dispersal issues be addressed in a manner that spreads capital investment over a longer period of time and allows lower rate increases?
We concluded that water supply and wastewater treatment projects for Davis are interrelated and that both needed to proceed. However, we suggested that alternatives to the proposed wastewater treatment plant could be developed that would be considerably less expensive.
Our conclusions were developed from studying the Master Plan and the supporting documents developed over the previous 20 years. We based our review on five guiding principles:
* Security and reliability of the water supply source(s) is of paramount importance to the long-term security of a community;
* Provision of an adequate supply of high quality water is a fundamental responsibility of the city;
* The value of water will rise significantly in the future and water supply options will diminish;
* The planning horizon should be as long as possible; and
* The city must meet applicable requirements for water quality, water treatment and water reuse and/or dispersal.
[b]The water supply and wastewater management issues are tied together because selenium concentrations in the intermediate aquifer are above limits in our discharge permit.[/b] Stricter discharge requirements on other minerals such as boron and total salt content are expected in the future to protect groundwater and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Additionally, the condition of the city’s wells and the quality of water in the intermediate aquifer is deteriorating. A 2008 National Water Research Institute panel noted that 12 of the city’s 23 wells were more than 30 years old; that a number of intermediate aquifer wells had been taken out of production due to high nitrate, selenium, total dissolved solids and other mineral concentrations; and major investments would be needed to maintain the system.
To improve water quality, the city has developed several new wells in the “deep aquifer” at depths of more than 1,500 feet. The deep aquifer is believed connected to the upper intermediate aquifer and pumping could result in drawing contaminants from higher elevations into the deep wells as well as additional ground subsidence and loss of aquifer capacity. More important is the unknown sustainability of the deep aquifer if the city begins to rely more extensively on water from that depth.
Based on the available information, we concluded, and I continue to believe, that prudence demands developing a surface water supply at this time. The Sacramento River is a high-quality source of municipal water supplies used by Sacramento, West Sacramento, 550,000 people in Contra Costa County, the Metropolitan Water Agency of Southern California and many others.
Competition for surface water is increasing from other users and the demands that maintaining delta water quality place on supplies. Obtaining rights to Sacramento River water may not be possible in the future and the cost of buying water rights is expected to increase dramatically in coming years.
Postponing development will reduce future options and may require more expensive alternatives such as indirect potable reuse of municipal wastewater as is now being done in Southern California and El Paso, Texas, or direct potable reuse now being introduced in Cloudcroft, N.M., and Big Springs, Texas.
— Ed Schroeder is a professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis. Reach him at edmcschroeder@sbcglobal.net
Short URL: http://www.davisenterprise.com/?p=74812“[/i]
The bottom line …[quote]Ed Schroeder (8/29/11): “Based on the available information, we concluded, and [u]I continue to believe[/u], that prudence [u]demands[/u] developing a surface water supply [u]at this time[/u].[/quote]
Matt
Sue has difficulty clearly and succinctly answering questions, so let me answer for her and she can correct if she thinks it necessary.
Sue would tell you that selenium is not a problem in the deep aquifer. So to meet selenium limits, we only need to drill several more deep aquifer wells. Sue would also tell you that solution would suffice for the approximate 25 years before we actually transition to Sacramento surface water, or the deep aquifer would at least give us ample warning that it was going to meet our needs, at which point we’d proceed to the river.
The prudence that Ed Schroeder speaks of in his piece to the Enterprise is, in my opinion, the central debate. It is imprudent to continue to delay the inevitable.
That should be “the deep aquifer would at least give us ample warning that it was [i]not[/i] going to meet our needs”.
Davis Enophile, I would respond to Sue that her solution only works if the City retires all its selenium-rich intermediate and shallow aquifer wells. That would mean that 16 of the current 21 wells would be retired, necessitating 1) significant capital to replace the production of those 16 wells, 2) significantly increased risk that selenium from the intermediate aquifer will contaminate the deep acquifer because of all the holes punched into the roof of the deep acquifer, and 3) significantly increased overdrafting risk for the deep acquifer.
Of course Sue may choose to change your answer for her. If she does, I’ll modify the above to address her specific points.
Deep wells won’t solve the selenium problem.
Davis ground water selenium content, current wells: 6.4 ppb
UC Davis water selenium content, deep wells: 2.8 ppb
“EPA will propose new water quality criteria for selenium
U.S. EPA, on September 1, 2011, announced that they will propose new site-specific water-quality criteria for selenium that will protect fish and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. The new criteria will be based on results of scientific studies by the U.S. Geological Survey .
[b]C-WIN’s analysis of the reports shows that the science provides the basis for a change in the water-quality standard for selenium from 5 ppb to less than 1 ppb, and for some species and hydrologic conditions, less than 0.1 ppb, which is 50 times less than the current 5 ppb.[/b] . This change is needed to protect economic resources of the Delta Estuary and Bay including salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and diving birds.
“These scientific documents raise questions about the wisdom of letting the Grassland drainers continue to use the San Joaquin River as a de-facto drain and whether the existing Central Valley water quality selenium standard of 2 ppb for wildlife refuges is adequate,” stated Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst with C-WIN.”
C-WIN is a clean water advocacy group.
Well Don, that is a considerable future risk isn’t it? Would not be surprising to see these reduced future selenium limits creep their way up from the Delta, since we discharge to it. Heres a link to the USGS report:
[url]http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/ctr/selenium-mgmt.pdf[/url]
Warning, there are grotesque pictures of baby birds that may be objectionable to some bloggers.
Also note, the author of the report works for the John Muir Institute at UCD. Maybe we could get Rich Rifkin to interview him.
Re: possible pending (?) selenium discharge standards,
Yikes! I wonder what Sacramento River water levels of selenium are?
If they are frequently near or above 0.1 to 1 ppb (perhaps during late summer & early fall low-flow);
then we might have to treat for selenium with either groundwater or Sac River water.
I think the simplest answer is that selenium doesn’t naturally occur in Sacramento River water from the source as it does in Yolo groundwater.