Combined with Selenium Accumulating in Davis Wetlands’ Wildlife, This is a Likely Death Knell for Davis’ Hope for a Wastewater Variance or Extension
by Alan Pryor –
Admittedly, the surface water project forum held recently by the City of Davis was well-orchestrated and rather boring with few surprises until near the end. Then, in response to a delicately-phrased question by Elaine Roberts Musser about the financial reliability of Woodland as a partner in the surface water project (an argument initially raised by some other than Ms. Musser), Woodland Councilwoman Martie Dotie assured the Davis attendees in no uncertain terms that Woodland is 100% committed to the project..
Woodland’s straight-talking Councilman Skip Davies then told the crowd that Woodland didn’t have a choice but to go ahead with the surface water project because of their wastewater problems. He said they have already been heavily fined by the Water Board for wastewater discharge violations and were currently operating without a valid wastewater permit. He then pointedly dropped the bombshell that if Davis decides not to move ahead with the project, that the City of Woodland will do by themselves and there no mistaken that he meant it.
By their tone, it was clear that these Woodland Councilmembers were a bit puzzled at the suggestion that they might be an unreliable partner when it was Davis that was scrambling to assemble community support for the project. Indeed, after the meeting Councilwoman Dotie privately observed that Davis residents’ commitment to the environment seemed to stop at about $30 per month – alluding to the expected range of monthly water rate increases that would be seen in the average Davis water bill after 5-years to pay for the project.
So, what does Woodland and Davis wastewater quality have to do with the need for this surface water project? Well, it is because both Woodland and Davis are discharging tainted municipal wastewater to wetlands that eventually drain into the Yolo Bypass and on into the Delta. Both Woodland and Davis have similar discharge problems in that they have high selenium and salinity in their wastewater among other problems. The other problems, such as excess ammonia and/or nitrates, are already being addressed by the current waste treatment plant upgrades at each City. But it is the salinity (salt and other mineral concentrations) and the selenium in the wastewater which is causing the greatest concern among regulators. Both of these contaminants in our wastewater are a direct result of the high levels of each in our well water upon which the City is 100% reliant.
Both salinity and selenium have potentially serious adverse downstream effects on agriculture and wildlife Salt and high minerals in the discharged wastewater are problematic because it eventually ends up in agricultural lands towards its eventual destination in the Delta.
Selenium is a major concern in wetlands because it is bioaccumulative and can cause severe mammalian and avian birth deformities in species living in selenium-tainted wetlands. Readers may recall that it was selenium in agricultural runoff directed into the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge near Los Banos that caused an environmental disaster in the 1980s. It resulted in the annual disfigurement and death of thousands of newborn animals and bird hatchlings and eventually required the complete shutdown and drainage of the refuge. It was only reopened after removal of thousands of tons of sediment over the course of several years to rehabilitate those wetlands at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Understandably, regulatory authorities have been quite concerned with selenium discharge into wetlands ever since.
And the amount of selenium accumulating in the City’s wetlands’ wildlife is clearly increasing. The following graph illustrates the average amount of selenium found in bird eggs and invertebrates sampled at the Davis wastewater wetlands over the past 10 years.
So how much could we be fined if this came about because Davis decided not to proceed with its agreement with Woodland to bring in and treat the surface water? Well, in a recent article published in the Vanguard, Eric Landau of the Water Board was quoted as saying it is the policy of the Water Board to assess fines based on the costs avoided by the violator to come into compliance. In other words, they will fine you all of the money you might have otherwise saved by not coming into compliance. In the case of Davis, the capital costs of the surface water treatment plant option alone are about $10,000,000 per year – or about $27,000 per day. Who knows what rationale the Water Board might use to calculate such hypothetical fines in the future? But clearly the fines could be astronomical over time. The City would also assume a substantial amount of liability directly to the Clean Water Agency for Davis’ violation of its Installment Purchase Agreement with the Agency. Possible additional liability to the City of Woodland might also be incurred for additional costs incurred by Woodland to proceed on the surface project alone.
Without the surface water coming into the city and without obtaining additional extensions, the only viable option the City would have would be to comply with their wastewater discharge standards by other means. The only way this could be accomplished would be to add an additional treatment to the end of its already upgraded wastewater treatment plant to remove these additional constituents. And the only viable treatment option that can accomplish this is reverse osmosis of the already tertiary treated discharged wastewater. So how much would this cost? According to Documents filed with the Water Board by Davis, the cost of this alternative is in “the $600 million range”. (Author’s Note: It appears this figure also includes all of the additional planned upgrades at the wastewater plant).
Davis Councilmember Sue Greenwald has stated that, based on her conversations in the past with “unnamed sources”, there is a good chance that Davis can get a variance for its excessive discharges based on economic hardship. According to the Water Board representative Eric Landau, this is unlikely. It is all the more unlikely that this argument will be favorably reviewed by the Water Board because our partner in the surface water project, the City of Woodland claims they are willing to proceed without us…and they are comparatively far less wealthy, than the City of Davis.
Thus it is reasonable to assume that we will not get the imaginative variance assumed by Councilmember Greenwald. And additional delays in advancing the water project risks, at minimum, imposition of substantial fines by the Water Board and escalation of both costs and interest rates. In the worst case, if Davis delays too long in fulfilling its obligations to the Clean Water Agency and Woodland, Davis possibly faces significant legal liability to these entities.
This is a very dangerous game of “chicken” being played by opponents to the water project. It has a limited upside potential and an absolutely huge, bankrupt-the-City downside potential. And it all hinges on the veracity of Sue Greenwald’s claims that she has inside information from “unnamed sources” that we can get a variance from our statutory-required wastewater treatment obligations. Well, that may be true but to date we only have Sue’s word on it. If Sue Greenwald has any type of legal opinion or statements from regulatory authorities that such a variance is likely then she should step up and provide such documentation or stop making such unfounded claims.
It does not make any economic sense from a risk: reward basis to potentially lose the ability to participate with Woodland in the Clean Water Agency (at a capital cost of $150,000,000 +/-) by delaying the water project. If Woodland decides we have left them at the altar and moves ahead on the surface water project on its own because of our intransigence, our only viable alternative is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to install a huge reverse osmosis system to treat our wastewater.
And if the City is going to be paying hundreds of millions of dollars one way or another to solve its wastewater problems, it certainly seems prudent that the citizens of Davis should at least receive some beneficial use for spending that money (i.e. enjoying the surface water) rather than just paying to clean up our wastewater to the sole benefit of downstream users.
Alan,
Unfortunately, it will be difficult for me to answer this column for a few days because I just won’t have time, but I will answer it when I can.
The tone of your article is disrespectful, which is too bad because the issues are extraordinary important and need serious, civil and respectful discussion.
Do you really think that Woodland would turn down our offer to buy into the project when we are ready? That flies in the face of common sense. Their ratepayers will not be able to afford this project to begin with, and will be happy to have our participation at any time, just as we will be happy allow the University to buy in whenever they are ready.
Woodland could dig deeper wells. The deep aquifer is fine.
The state has never forced a city to resort to reverse osmosis in the basin.
The fact that I have reached out to outside experts for advice saved the city $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant.
When you save the city $100 million by reaching out to the “unnamed” sources, then you might be more entitled to speak in a supercilious manner.
Gotta go — I’m off.
The most expensive components of this project could be the egos !
Is Sue’s argument that we should stick it to Woodland and let them carry the water on the water project for us so we can continue to pollute the delta until we are ready to pay because we are to cheap or tapped out?
This is an excellent piece. Finally, some common sense.
Disrespectful? I think not.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
Looking at the chart it’s clear to see that the selenium levels are lower
in 2010 than they were in 2003-2005 and 2007-2008 years. I don’t see how that chart confirms that the levels are drastically rising. If anything it shows that the last 7 years that the selenium levels have leveled out to actually have improved.
The slope of the regression is up.
“The slope of the regression is up.”
That all depends on what time frame one chooses to pick. Where are the charts prior to 2000?
We have 11 pairs of data points. Casual eyeballing of a line through the points suggests the selenium levels have gone from about 2/2.5 to 4 in 10 years. The “curve” is up, and use of individual data points is pointless.
The point is that we’re being told that the selenium amounts are increasing but that’s not so if you take the last 7 years.
Alan: you support putting the huge rate hikes on the ballot, right? You are pro-democacy? Put it on the ballot, and each side can get into the pros and cons of their positions.
Not putting it on the ballot is the CC treating Davis voters like children who need to be managed. Being a long-time Davis resident and political activist, you are well aware that Davis voters pay attention to detail and are quite likely to get it right in June.
I have the petitions here at my office, or I will bring one to you to sign, ok?
Quick search on the internet for selenium toxicity thresholds in eggs finds the US fish and wildlife service recommending 6 ug/g dry weight. So our wetlands are half way there. Congratulations Davis!
Michael
You aer opposed to the surface water project. You have publicly stated you aren’t convinced there is any need. You want to put the rate increase on the ballot because the protest process did not yield an end to the project. You want a do over. Quit the BS. For you its not about democracy, its about killing a project.
Matt: don’t be so sure that your Woodland voters are going to pull the trigger on the big money rate increases that are ahead. Woodland voters also read the Davis Enterprise, and what we are doing here might spread, sort of like a “Yolo Spring” of pro-democracy residents who want to vote on things that matter to their lives. So far, Woodland has done to its voters what the Davis CC majority has tried to do to us: keep these huge rate increases from the voters. 759-8440.
[quote]The tone of your article is disrespectful, which is too bad because the issues are extraordinary important and need serious, civil and respectful discussion.
Do you really think that Woodland would turn down our offer to buy into the project when we are ready? That flies in the face of common sense. Their ratepayers will not be able to afford this project to begin with, and will be happy to have our participation at any time, just as we will be happy allow the University to buy in whenever they are ready. [/quote]
I would say the tone of Council member Greenwald’s comments are highly disrespectful, rather than any comments made by the author of this well thought out article. The article is merely questioning/disagreeing with Council member Greenwald’s untenable position of delay, delay, delay. When personal attacks begin coming out of the mouths of those who have had their positions questioned, it is usually because the personal attacker has no good rebuttals with which to refute the probing questions directed towards their indefensible positions. I would suggest Council member Greenwald cease engaging in personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with her position of delay, delay, delay,(and this is not the first time Council member Greenwald has engaged in personal attacks on those who oppose her), and start answering the questions directed her way in regard to her “nuanced” position on the surface water project, to wit: I’m for the surface water project, just not now, not 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now, but perhaps in 25 to 30 years. In effect, this delay tactic is nothing but a maneuver in my opinion to kill the project outright. It is unlikely Council member Greenwald will be in office when all the final fallout from her scenario would start raining down on the city if it were to be unwisely implemented, since it would be over a period of many years that it would happen.
IMO the comment “Do you think Woodland would turn down our offer to buy into the project when we are ready?” is particularly arrogant and disrespectful. What is being said here, that if unlike Davis, Woodland is foolish enough to go forward and implement the surface water project and chooses to pay for it all by themselves, our city can just opt-in when it feels like it/when it is at our convenience/advantage (in other words when the state starts fining us high enough to start making our decision to delay look foolish)? If I were Woodland, I’d charge Davis a whopping “delay fee” for the privilege of joining in late in the game under those self-serving circumstances on the part of Davis.
And how well do you think that arrogant and disrespectful attitude by Davis is going to go over with the SWRCB, when our city tries to argue “economic infeasibility” while Woodland, which according the Council member Greenwald is so much more economically incapable of paying for this project, manages to somehow pull together and “git ‘er done” as Larry the Cable Guy would say?
If we follow Council member Greenwald’s advice, I suspect this city is headed for a more expensive surface water project in the long run – riddled with the costs of steep fines, extra costs of deep water wells we might have to drill, possible subsidence problems, the costs of keeping a crumbling infrastructure going, not to mention shame at showing ourselves to be environmentally irresponsible as our direct neighbors to the north do what is right. The train wreck Ms. Greenwald keep’s threatening is going to happen if we move forward with the surface water project seems to me to be completely inverted – it is the train wreck that will be caused IF WE DON’T MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT THAT I’M MUCH MORE CONCERNED ABOUT.
One final point – the city of Davis is not the center of the universe… it will take mutual cooperation to get the surface water project done in the least costly manner possible for all concerned.
“Woodland Councilwoman Martie Dotie assured the Davis attendees in no uncertain terms that Woodland is 100% committed to the project..”
DUH…. What did you expect to hear from the Woodland Council as Davis is about to hold a referendum on it going forward with this project at this time? Politically,”assurances” like this may have some validity… UNTIL THEY DON’T.
DE: we start with the democratic process, and let the chips fall where they may.
Don’t trust the Davis voters? The CC put Target on the ballot; how silly compared to this huge fiscal suck of our money.
Keep it up; it will look good in the campaign literature: “Dear Davis voters, they tried to treat you like children and tell you what was best for you and how to spend your precious money in the middle of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, and now they are trying to sell our public water to an international company that has been fined and investigated and fired repeatedly all over the country for e-coli testing fraud, among other things?”
Like Dan Wolk said, this project is a fiscal and planning mess.
I am looking forward to the campaign.
Of course, the CC has the option to simply vote to reconsider, and withdraw the rate hikes. So they dont have to put all of us through this hamburger machine. Maybe they will come to their senses, and cancel the rate hikes, and conduct a full, transparent, and independent study of our well system. (Folks, it has never been done.)
See you at the ballot box.
“Selenium is a naturally occurring trace mineral that can concentrate in the water.
In small amounts, it is good for bird health but can be toxic in large doses.”
So what are the acceptable limits?
Rusty and Michael-Science is not democratic . Votes don’t change physical reality .
Sue: read and appreciate your 5 am comments. You work so hard for the voters, for over 11 years now. Your comments make practical and fiscal sense. It’s why I am going to help you run again for re-election. You are running on fiscal sanity; your opponents are running on higher taxes and fees, and one of them will be stuck with the years of huge handouts to employees and vendors without a care in the world as to the sustainability of those giveaways. Thank you, Sue, for sitting up there for 11 long years, taking flack and abuse, and truly representing the voters best interest. You have hugely earned the respect and vote of all of us.
[i]”Davis residents’ commitment to the environment seemed to stop at about $30 per month”[/i]
ouch!
I think our fair city needs to hire a new PR firm.
The worldview of the average (Davis?) liberal voter is full of irony. It includes an inconsolable passion to protect the environment by limiting economic production and taxing economic success… which decreases economic production and success and thus creates more poverty… which is another inconsolable passion for them to protect.
Those more-likely clingers to religion and guns twelve miles to the north want to keep delta duck hunting lands unpolluted. It will also be ironic if Woodland goes this alone and gets to claim the higher moral ground on the environment.
I tend to agree with them, especially in consideration of the probability of future costs of a surface water project exceeding the rate of inflation.
I am tired of paying more for taxes and paying higher rates for captive-customer services from government; however, I am much more against kicking another financial burden down the road to our children. Haven’t we done enough damage to the economic prospects of the generations that follow? Let’s just take our damn medicine and move on.
[quote]”Selenium is a naturally occurring trace mineral that can concentrate in the water.
In small amounts, it is good for bird health but can be toxic in large doses.”
So what are the acceptable limits?
[/quote]
Rusty, see my post above. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency, says the threshold is 6 ug/g dry weight for eggs. Based on the plot above, the Davis wetlands have bird eggs with just under 3.5 ug/g dry weight.
Of course Rusty, the US FWS is a bunch of fanatical tree huggers, so let me just beat you to the punch.
[quote]”In other words, they will fine you all of the money you might have otherwise saved by not coming into compliance. In the case of Davis, the capital costs of the surface water treatment plant option alone are about $10,000,000 per year – or about $27,000 per day. Who knows what rationale the Water Board might use to calculate such hypothetical fines in the future?”[/quote]I do. Well, at least, I know they’re not about to impose the $10-million a year you’ve tossed out as a standard operating procedure (“how much could we be fined”). The Water Board has neither the political power nor will to successfully penalize a struggling, small city anything close to “astronomical” fines when it’s making significant, good faith progress and effort in a recession.
Granted it’s disappointing and surprising that Sue Greenwald has been unable or unwilling to convince her secret experts to go public on a matter of such “extraordinary importance.”
I certainly accept the integrity issue in refusing to exposing their names, affiliations, etc. if she’s promised them anonymity in exchange for telling her stuff.
However, this obviously leaves everyone except her unable to have ANY exchange with them, let alone the “serious, civil and respectful discussion” she says the issues deserve.
I’m surprised she doesn’t see the fragility of her position–that the public debate is served by her acting as gate-keeper, primarily because the city saved $100,000 because of her (confidential?) sources.
If her secret sources with policy opinions that contradict Mr. Landau’s are elected or appointed politicians involved in the agencies/process, as she claimed, I’d say they’re ignoring their public duty by allowing Mr. Landau to continue giving the water agency and the public supposedly inaccurate information.
If her secret experts are hiding for fear of jeopardizing future employment prospects, as she said, I’d say their professional standards have to be questioned.
The “secret source” stand is unsustainable much longer, yet that doesn’t mean she has an “imaginative variance.” Even though we can’t predict the results of such a request, I don’t understand the reluctance to pursue one at the same time were moving ahead to get the projects done as soon as possible.
Mike Harrington’s prediction ability appears better each day. I see his card tables and convincing petition pushers all over town at all hours. If an election results, I’d guess the rate hikes are in serious jeopardy. This project is in trouble.
Claiming we need a certain rate increase, then saying less will be okay (at the last moment), opens a trust gap that may doom the financing on its own. Having a divided council with confusing, conflicting “facts” doesn’t help on such a complicated and expensive undertaking regardless of how needed it is.
Re: Sue’s Comments – “The fact that I have reached out to outside experts for advice saved the city $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant. When you save the city $100 million by reaching out to the “unnamed” sources, then you might be more entitled to speak in a supercilious manner.”
Sue Greenwald has repeatedly stated that she “personally” saved the City this money which is no more true than if I claimed my it was my dog, Spot, that saved the City the money.
To her credit, at the time Sue was pushing very hard for a 3rd review of preliminary wastewater treatment plant upgrades. But others also said it was a good idea to get a 3rd opinion of these preliminary plans. And so the City went out and got a 3rd opinion…that’s business as usual for preliminary capital improvement projects of that magnitude
Drs. Schroeder and Tchobanoglous then did their study and recommended an advanced bioreactor be included in the upgrade wastewater treatment design plan ALONG WITH BRINGING IN SURFACE WATER. The point is it was a package deal that they proposed that resulted in the savings Sue claims as her own. It included both a new equipment design plan AND bringing in surface water.
The irony is that Sue is now trying to gut the Schroeder and Tchobanoglous recommendations by eliminating bringing in the surface water which seems to be a cornerstone of their recommendations, But doing so completely scuttles their plans and eliminates the savings Sue claims as her own. As I pointed out in the article above, IF we have to resort to additional treatment of our already tertiary treated water to come into NPDES wastewater discharge compliance, it may very well cost us $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 OR MUCH MORE!
I doubt very much that Sue will be claiming that she personally COST the City $100,000,000 in future wastewater treatment costs if she is successful in scuttling the surface water project.
Why can’t the Davis WWTP effluent be sold (or given for free) to be used for irrigation of non-wetland crops such as alfalfa? Selenium is added to livestock feed because of it’s positive effects in dairy production, weight gain, and calf production. I would think that having a forage crop that already has a quantity of selenium in it would have it’s advantages for some livestock producers.
@ Alan Pryor:[quote]This is a very dangerous game of “chicken” being played by opponents to the water project. It has a limited upside potential and an absolutely huge, bankrupt-the-City downside potential. And it all hinges on the veracity of Sue Greenwald’s claims that she has inside information from “unnamed sources” that we can get a variance from our statutory-required wastewater treatment obligations. Well, that may be true but to date we only have Sue’s word on it. If Sue Greenwald has any type of legal opinion or statements from regulatory authorities that such a variance is likely then she should step up and provide such documentation or stop making such unfounded claims.[/quote]@ Sue Greenwald:[quote]The tone of your article is disrespectful, which is too bad because the issues are extraordinary important and need serious, civil and respectful discussion.[/quote]Alan: I concur with Matt and Elaine. The tone of your article was not disrespectful. Sue accused me of picking on her in the last thread when I raised the same issue.
Judging from these responses it appears that a nerve has been touched by raising the question of Sue’s specific “Plan B” if her proposed variance requests were to be denied. I suspect this is because there is no real “Plan B” and she cannot produce the “unnamed experts” she cites.
In a unusually candid CYA on the last thread, Sue stated:[quote]I am not against proceeding with the project if the costs of phasing it in outweight the benefits.[/quote]If this is actually her true position, then any substantive discussion of the costs of a failed variance request are highly threatening to Sue’s political agenda.
Thanks for the informative article.
If water quality is truly the issue, then why have the Project proponents placed their intake (for drinking water among other uses) just below the discharge point for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at Knights landing? The sediment plume from the Colusa Drain is visible for miles downriver during the summer irrigation season, and when the demand for Project water will be highest. Remember, drinking water standards are more strict than the standards for other uses of water.
@ Sue Greenwald: “Do you really think that Woodland would turn down our offer to buy into the project when we are ready? That flies in the face of common sense. Their ratepayers will not be able to afford this project to begin with, and will be happy to have our participation at any time, just as we will be happy allow the University to buy in whenever they are ready.”
This is extremely disingenuous. Sue has been critical of UCD having an option to buy-in after the project is completed. And now she argues that Davis should do the same thing to Woodland? Give me a break. And on what planet does one city overbuild infrastructure capacity by 40-50% just in case a neighboring city might want to buy-in at some future date?
In the case of UCD, they only have rights to 3.5% of the project. Whether they are in or out is not a deal breaker. In addition, my reading of the record suggests that they provided a fair quid pro quo in exchange for these rights.
Steve Hayes: facinating. We will get to these problems in the campaign. BTW, do you have an aerial of that plume that we can use? Maybe a nice ad at the Varsity to show those registered voters where the fabled summer “clean water” is sucking from?
The project proponents are stuck with bad facts, yet they charge ahead like crazy and want the taxpayers to bail them out of a bad plan.
I saw eleven years ago that the consultants are driving this thing, and it’s still the same today. The City has routinely used the same consultants for advice on WHETHER to do something, and then the staff hire those same consultants to DO IT.
I understand that Yost and Associates is billing the City or JPA at least $100K a month, or is it $1 milliion per month? Sue knows, as usual, and has pointed this out.
Do you think it was a mere coincidence that Yost and Associates were up at the podium with Don Saylor when he announced his run for Supervisor? (David, I think I saw that photo on the Vanguard? Someone should post it again, and again, and again.)
IMO, All the fighting and bickering AND disputation over claimed “facts” over a range of individual and very important issues related to this entire project lead me to the conclusion that the petition should be signed by all concerned and the projects, and I say projects advisedly because there are a number of important components, should be subject to a series of community-wide panel discussions of experts in regional water planning, water permits and conjunctive use of surface and groundwater, the short and long-term rate structure, Design-Build AND public operation vs. a private operation contract, and on and on. The debates on this blog and in the newspaper take up one issue after another and we need to come back to a comprehensive discussion before this is approved and we are locked in for decades of ever-increasing rates and a project that might have/could have been much better conceptualized and designed.
Alanpryor, can you please supply the link where you got your chart data?
Even with the “plume” the surface water has [i]significantly[/i] lower salinity and other effluent issues than ground water.
Re: Steve Hayes Comments – “…why have the Project proponents placed their intake (for drinking water among other uses) just below the discharge point for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at Knights landing? The sediment plume from the Colusa Drain is visible for miles downriver during the summer irrigation season, and when the demand for Project water will be highest. Remember, drinking water standards are more strict than the standards for other uses of water.”
3 things to mention – 1) Far more water (up to 45,000 acre-ft) will be taken out of the river during the winter 6 months than the absolute maximum (10,000 acre-feet ) that can be taken out during the summer 6 months – and the amount taken during the summer still hase to be approved by the Water Board; 2) Sediment is actually quite easy to remove by sand filtration; and 3) For some constituents, discharge standards are more stringent than drinking water standards (salinity for example). It all depends on where the wastewater is going.
Check out the following report: Turek, S. April 1990. Colusa Basin Drain Water Quality Literature Review. Memorandum Report. CA Department of Water Resources, Northern District (you can google it). The report notes the following: “The CBD water is sodium-magnesium bicarbonate in nature, while the river is calcium-magnesium bicarbonate in type. The drain water is moderately hard. Electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solids (TDS) are substantially higher in the CBD and raise the EC and TDS of the river measurably. Mass loading of salts from agricultural sources may have a negative impact on the delta. Salts appear to be stored in the soil-water system of the Colusa Basin during the irrigation season and are flushed from the basin during the winter. Salts during the irrigation season are concentrated tow to three times as water in the CBD is used and reused. This concentration of salts is largely due to evapotranspiration.”
Would you like me to provide you with links to the relative water qualities of Sacramento River water versus intermediate and deep aquifer ground water?
[i]Michael Harrington:
Not putting it on the ballot is the CC treating Davis voters like children who need to be managed. Being a long-time Davis resident and political activist, you are well aware that Davis voters pay attention to detail and are quite likely to get it right in June.[/i]
Ours is a representative democracy, we elect the City Council to make difficult and complex decisions on our behalf. If we don’t like their decision, we elect someone else. Not putting this on the ballot means the the current City Council members respect the job they were elected to perform. I may not agree with all the decisions they make, but I respect their willingness to make them.
[i]Don’t trust the Davis voters? The CC put Target on the ballot; how silly… [/i]
Yes it was silly. They should have made the decision themselves.
[i]Jeff Boone:
I am tired of paying more for taxes and paying higher rates for captive-customer services from government; however, I am much more against kicking another financial burden down the road to our children. Haven’t we done enough damage to the economic prospects of the generations that follow? Let’s just take our damn medicine and move on.
[/i]
I frequently find myself on the opposite side of many of Jeff’s posted opinions, but this time he has it exactly right.
Mark West:
[i]”Ours is a representative democracy, we elect the City Council to make difficult and complex decisions on our behalf.”[/i]
I am sometimes on the opposite side of Mark’s opinions, but I was thinking the exact same thing.
Mike Harrington, with all due respect, I think average Davis voters (as intelligent as they are) do not know enough about this highly technical topic to make an informed decision. I agree with Mark. Many people will vote with their hand on their immediate wallet without enough consideration of the long-term cost-benefit… especially when the topic is technical with eyes-glazing-over explanations.
I don’t want to pay another dime for my city services, but young people (the same that connot get a job after we baby boomers destroyed the economy) should be protected from having to deal with this later.
CORRECTION. Sorry for understating the savings for which Sue is responsible…. [quote]”I’m surprised she doesn’t see the fragility of her position–that the public debate is served by her acting as gate-keeper, primarily because the city saved [s]$100,000[/s] $100,000,000 because of her (confidential?) sources.”[/quote] P.S.–Did the confidential sources ever step into the public arena during the earlier case that she’s mentioned a few times?
[i][quote]”Ours is a representative democracy, we elect the City Council to make difficult and complex decisions on our behalf.”
“I am sometimes on the opposite side of Mark’s opinions, but I was thinking the exact same thing.”[/quote][/i]Me three. What are we thinking when we adopt the Tea Party “no new taxes,” “take back our government” approach to keeping Davis a place in which we want to live (and improve it a a quality town for our children’s families)?
Things actually are showing up on the ballot because Davis citizens treat the city council “like children” (per our housing development process) and when the city council lacks courage to do their own duty (like Target).
I’m concerned that the city (staff and council) apparently hasn’t devoted adequate time, effort and communication to such a major undertaking. But, I’m not at all confident that the level and tone of the Harrington campaign will result in improved decisions for our city. This doesn’t bode well.
Sue: [i]”Woodland could dig deeper wells. [b]The deep aquifer is fine[/b].”[/i]
You have not provided compelling evidence of this, nor has anybody else.
Don: Here’s a little gem from a 2007 article by David Greenwald reviewing the history of the water debate:[quote]By November 6, 2003, a Davis city council vote authorized Woodland to be added to an MOU along with the City of Davis and UC Davis to do a deep aquifer study. That was passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Mike Harrington dissenting. (Remember Greenwald’s preferred option was always the deep aquifer route so naturally she went along with this part of the project).
“The aquifer study was approved on a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Mike Harrington dissenting. Harrington believes the study is linked to a growth-induced need for more water capacity, rather than just a search for higher-quality water.”[/quote]
To East Davis re: “Why can’t the Davis WWTP effluent be sold (or given for free) to be used for irrigation of non-wetland crops such as alfalfa? Selenium is added to livestock feed because of it’s positive effects in dairy production, weight gain, and calf production…”
That is true except that the wastewater has so much salinity in it that alfalfa wuld grow very poorly. But it is an interesting observation because Calif foothills (where lots of cattle graze) are low in selenium. So all of the dirt removed from Kesterson in the 1980s was taken up to the nearby Coastal Range foothills and spread and now the grass grown there is higher in selenium and better for the cattle
“[i]however, I am much more [b]against kicking another financial burden down the road to our children[/b]. Haven’t we done enough damage to the economic prospects of the generations that follow? Let’s just take our damn medicine and move on.[/i]”
I support the above sentiment 100%.
Voter2012: “The aquifer study was approved on a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Mike Harrington dissenting. Harrington believes the study is linked to a growth-induced need for more water capacity, rather than just a search for higher-quality water.”
You’ve posted this before and I don’t recall it getting any response. It is quite a gem, as you say.
@Voter2012: That report was completed. It is Phase II Deep Aquifer Study. You can find it by doing a Google search, then look at the cached items in various places; e.g., when it was presented to the Natural Resources Commission in May 2005.
As a separate note, I urge everybody to read this report: [url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/RefANWRIFinalDWWSPReport.pdf[/url]
It addresses the deep aquifer situation, among other issues. Note that it is an independent analysis, and that the authors are (wait for it….)
Harvey F. Collins, Ph. D., Environmental Engineer Consultant
Robert C. Cheng, Ph.D. Deputy General Manager, Operations, Long Beach, CA
[b]Graham E. Fogg, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrogeology and Hydrogeologist,
University of California, Davis (Davis, California)[/b]
BRENT M. HADDAD, PH.D.
Director, Center for Integrated Water Research
Professor of Environmental Studies Department
University of California, Santa Cruz
RICHARD H. SAKAJI, PH.D., P.E.
Manager of Planning and Analysis for Water Quality
East Bay Municipal Utility District
R. RHODES TRUSSELL, PH.D., P.E., DEE
President
Trussell Technologies, Inc. (Pasadena, California)
GUS YATES, PG, CHg
Independent Consulting Hydrologist (Berkeley, California)
VALERIE J. YOUNG, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Winzler & Kelly (San Francisco, California)
“The first question the Panel debated was whether the objectives of the DWWSP were met by the alternative selected. Those objectives included:
1. Provide a reliable water supply to meet existing and future needs.
2. Improve water quality for drinking water purposes.
3. Improve the quality of treated wastewater effluent discharged by the Project Partners through 2040.
The Panel unanimously concluded that the selected DWWSP project, which will develop a surface water supply for use by the City of Davis, the City of Woodland, and the University of California at Davis, in conjunction with the continued use of their groundwater supplies, will fully meet all three of the above objectives.”
Regarding the deep aquifer:
Cost. Based on the above assumptions, the only advantage to this alternative is lower capital cost, which is approximately 60 percent as large as the cost of the DWWSP.
• Stranded Assets. If the purpose of the alternative is to delay rather than avoid the surface water project, then the large number of new deep wells that would have to be constructed in the next decade under this alternative would become largely superfluous when the surface water project subsequently comes online.
• Waste Discharge Permit. Based on the City of Woodland’s experience with the RWQCB-CVR, it is unlikely that the City of Davis will succeed in arguing for a salinity discharge limit of 900 μmho/cm rather than 700 μmho/cm. This may be a fatal flaw.
• Water Softener Elimination. It is highly unlikely that the City will be able to convince all customers to forego water softening or switch to exchange tank-type softening equipment. Participation in the conversion effort would have to approach 100 percent for this alternative to succeed. The hardness of the deep zone groundwater (100-125 mg/L as CaCO3) is sufficiently high that customers might not immediately conclude that softening is unnecessary. The Panel knows of no precedent for such a comprehensive and rapid decommissioning of private water softeners. As we understand the current law, the City can ban the installation of new softeners, but does not have the power to directly require that existing softeners be removed.
• Deep Aquifer Yield. There is a risk of overdraft in the deep zone. The increase in production from that zone from about 2,800 to 7,700 af/yr during the past 15 years has not resulted in chronic declining water levels. However, the increase to 27,600 af/yr would probably cause water levels to decline. The decline might stabilize when the “pumping trough” has reached a size large enough to induce leakage from the intermediate aquifer zone equal in magnitude to the well production. Several studies of the deep aquifer completed to date have not been able to estimate its sustainable yield based on available data. Additional studies, including comprehensive groundwater modeling, would likely reduce the uncertainty regarding sustainable yield, but there is also substantial risk that the sustainable yield will not be adequately quantified until the deep aquifer production increases and adverse impacts commence. The potential adverse impacts are degradation in groundwater quality, subsidence, and increased energy costs.
• Subsidence. There is a moderate risk of subsidence in the deep zone. Water-level declines (seasonal, long-term and drought-year) would all be larger than the corresponding declines in the intermediate zone. Therefore, the head stresses that induce compaction of clay layers would be greater than the stresses that have historically caused subsidence in the intermediate zone. However, clays in the deep zone are probably less compressible than clays in the intermediate zone because of their greater age and depth of burial.
• Deep Aquifer Quality. Even if pumping from the deep aquifer does not exceed its sustainable yield, it is likely that the quality of water produced by deep wells will gradually deteriorate over a period of decades (possibly more than a century). Three processes could contribute to the deterioration: (1) pumping will induce downward leakage of intermediate-zone groundwater into the deep zone; (2) decreased head in deep aquifers will cause water to seep out of adjacent aquitards into the aquifers; and (3) decreased head in deep aquifers will cause upward flow of still deeper, brackish, or saline water. The water quality in clay aquitards is typically worse than in aquifers. This effect was noticeable in the intermediate zone wells when water-levels declined during the 1987-1992 drought. Therefore, the deep aquifer alternative is not considered indefinitely sustainable from a water quality standpoint.
• Interference with UC Davis Wells. Well testing and water level monitoring have shown that pumping of City of Davis deep aquifer wells would cause additional drawdowns in water levels of UC Davis wells. While the ultimate seriousness of future interference between City and University wells is unclear, there is the risk that the two parties would end up competing for the same, limited source of water. Because the University developed the deep aquifer resources before the City did, the University’s rights to the deep aquifer would likely be considered superior.
• Carbon Footprint. The energy cost per acre-foot for the deep aquifer alternative would be substantially greater than for the DWWSP. The DWWSP FEIR estimated that greenhouse gas emissions for the No Project alternative would be 30-percent greater than for the DWWSP at production levels in 2040.
@SteveHayes: “If water quality is truly the issue, then why have the Project proponents placed their intake (for drinking water among other uses) just below the discharge point for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at Knights landing? The sediment plume from the Colusa Drain is visible for miles downriver during the summer irrigation season, and when the demand for Project water will be highest. Remember, drinking water standards are more strict than the standards for other uses of water.”
The CWA got what was essentially a “free” use of an existing intake location and part of existing intake capacity when they purchased summer water rights. (When I say free, I mean that the CWA did not have to pay additional money beyond the payments for the water.) Getting a new intake location is extremely difficult and time consuming, with years of litigation likely. Some would argue that the most valuable item that the CWA acquired last December was the right to this intake facility. Others have water that could be sold to the CWA, no one else had available intake capacity that could serve the CWA.
As to the statements about standards for water quality for drinking water being higher than for other uses, this is not always true. Some constituents in water affect wildlife and the environment more than they affect humans. This has been clearly stated in numerous statements that the water quality issue is one related to wastewater discharge, not drinking water standards. Good examples are salinity and selenium.
@eastdavis: “Why can’t the Davis WWTP effluent be sold (or given for free) to be used for irrigation of non-wetland crops such as alfalfa? Selenium is added to livestock feed because of it’s positive effects in dairy production, weight gain, and calf production. I would think that having a forage crop that already has a quantity of selenium in it would have it’s advantages for some livestock producers.”
Water that isn’t “pure” enough to be drained back into our rivers is sometimes “spray irrigated” on various crops that don’t mind the particular impurity. However, you need to have the land and the crop available to take this water, and you typically also have to store some of this water because while the CWA would be producing this waste water year round, crops don’t require water year round. Panoche Water District in the Central Valley is doing some interesting things to dispose of subsurface water that has high levels of salinity and selenium. They grow a grass that loves salt water and they irrigate pistachios with high selenium water that is too high for wildlife but fine for humans. Quite fascinating stuff. Just don’t know how much water CWA or Davis would produce and/or whether CWA or Davis would have the right to not clean and send the water downstream, as every upstream water users wastewater discharge is somebody downstream’s water supply source!
Don
Extremely informative document. Thanks for the post. For those who question the need for the surface water project, and I specifically refer to Michael Harrington, here’s the panels conclusion on the deep aquifer (pg 28)
“The deep groundwater without demineralization alternative appears to be infeasible, primarily because the likelihood is slim of: (1) successfully negotiating a less stringent EC discharge requirement at the wastewater plant; and (2) eliminating essentially all self-regenerating water softeners. Even if those two obstacles could be overcome, the capital cost savings would be moderate, while risks and other costs are numerous and collectively substantial. Therefore, the Panel concludes that this alternative is probably infeasible and is, in any event, less attractive than the DWWSP” DWWSP = the surface water project
Now I would appreciate it if [i]anybody[/i] would post a link or quote [i]from any expert in the field[/i]:
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.
[quote]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.[/quote]
YOU HAVE SQUARELY HIT THE PROVERBIAL NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD!!! Thanks for posting the salient points above from the reports/panel discissions.
[quote]Drs. Schroeder and Tchobanoglous then did their study and recommended an advanced bioreactor be included in the upgrade wastewater treatment design plan ALONG WITH BRINGING IN SURFACE WATER. The point is it was a package deal that they proposed that resulted in the savings Sue claims as her own. It included both a new equipment design plan AND bringing in surface water.
The irony is that Sue is now trying to gut the Schroeder and Tchobanoglous recommendations by eliminating bringing in the surface water which seems to be a cornerstone of their recommendations, But doing so completely scuttles their plans and eliminates the savings Sue claims as her own. As I pointed out in the article above, IF we have to resort to additional treatment of our already tertiary treated water to come into NPDES wastewater discharge compliance, it may very well cost us $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 OR MUCH MORE…[/quote]
What is even more ironical is this:
1) Council member Greenwald is trying to shop around and cherry pick another expert who will publicly agree with her position of delaying the surface water project for 25 to 30 years, an expert named Dr. Fogg, or so she says.
2) The two UCD experts Ms. Greenwald already insisted on being consulted in regard to the wastewater treatment plant upgrade have advocated for moving ahead with the surface water project first and foremost to realize any savings on the wastewater treatment side.
3) Yet Dr. Fogg it has been discovered is associated with a report which seems to be antithetical to the idea of delaying the surface water project for the next 30 years as Ms. Greenwald is advocating. (Dr. Fogg is certainly free to correct me if my interpretation is wrong.)
So how many cherries must be picked, and at what cost to the city, before Council member Greenwald will be satisfied? Is the city supposed to keep picking until Ms. Greenwald gets the answer she is looking for to delay the surface water project 25 to 30 years, and dismiss all the other cherries that did not agree with her position? Because already there seem to be a slew of experts balanced on one side advocating for moving forward with the surface water project sooner rather than later.
Thanks for everyone’s input. Now us voters will weigh everything and make a decision come next June.
@newshoundpm: I am well aware of the work done by Panoche Drainage District. They use highly saline drainage water (much saltier and higher in selenium and boron than what Davis WWTP produces I believe) and irrigate forage crops such as alfalfa and Jose tall wheatgrass that they then bale and sell to local feedlots. Worth considering as an option for Davis WWTP effluent too.
Don: Thanks for the references. I found this section from the NWRI Independent Advisory Panel Report report by [u]Fogg and colleagues[/u] to be particularly relevant to the current discussion.[quote][b]Restricted or Foregone Future Water Supply Alternatives.[/b] Pursuing the deep aquifer alternatives could restrict or eliminate the feasibility of implementing the DWWSP at a future date. Briefly, the risk and cost considerations are:
o The SWRCB would very likely cancel the existing 1994 application for lack of due diligence.
o The City of Woodland would probably seek an independent solution to its water supply problems and might not be available as a partner in the future.
o Climate change will likely change the yield of Lake Shasta and could decrease the availability of unappropriated water.
o Competition for purchases of summer water from willing sellers will almost certainly be much greater. It is unlikely that most of the current identified potential sellers would have as much water available to sell in 25-30 years.
o The cost to date of the water rights application, protest negotiations, and CEQA documentation is approximately $3 million; most of this money would be lost because these documents would have to be updated in the future, thereby incurring additional costs.
o RD 2035 (Conaway Ranch) almost certainly needs to replace its intake in the near future anyway and, without the DWWSP, the Ranch would probably not construct the full 400 cfs capacity, thus increasing the cost of any future project.
o Construction costs have been increasing far faster than inflation, so the rate impact in the future would be higher.[/quote]
More from the NWRI Independent Advisory Panel Report report by [u]Fogg and colleagues[/u] …
Sue keeps talking about “chump change” when she makes her points about accessing the deep water aquifer. Fortunately, Don has now pointed us to an authoritative report by a panel of independent, non-anonymous experts (including the new adviser that Sue is pushing, Graham Fogg) that estimates for us what “chump change” really is.
Well design and construction (19 wells) – $47.5 million
Wellhead Fe-Mn treatment (10 wells) – $15 million
Land costs (10 sites at $500,000) – $5 million
Pipelines for wells outside city limits – $10 million
EIR, permitting, litigation – $2 million
[b]Total $79.5 million[/b]
This is over 50% of the cost of our portion of the surface water project – and it won’t even bring us into compliance with the new water quality regulations. Add the increased costs of waste water treatment from forgoing surface water and the deep aquifer option does not look very attractive from a cost perspective.
Don, I’m glad I am not debating against you on this topic. You are well armed. Thanks for the posts. Voter2012 did a good job summarizing the main cost/risks.
Rusty is correct that this will likely come down to what the voters want regardless of positions taken on this blog and in the CC chambers. I just hope voters will be well enough informed.
Rusty, do you see this as a project that does not ever need to be completed, or one that we think is inevitable, but we should delay? I think CCM-Sue believes the second. I am not supportive of a delay for these cost-risk reasons, and it appears to me that there are a number of points indicative of deep water wells as our only source being inadequate at some point in the future. That being the case, I would prefer we hold our nose and get er’ done.
However, I would change my mind with enough evidence that deep water wells would continue to meet our water supply needs, while meeting all state and national effluence requirements (one that I expect to continually ramp up in CA as tree-huggers control the state).
One last point I would make… it is the “bird in the hand” principle… the acquisition of water rights and infrastructure has proven to pay dividends to those communities lucky enough or smart enough to have moved first. CCM-Sue, I think, points out that we have the rights reserved, but others have pointed out that there are risks we could lose them if we stall and don’t use them. You know that other principle “you snooze, you lose”.
In consideration of all these things, and also because we should have a general distaste for pushing expenses to later generations, I think we need to support it.
I apologize that I don’t have the time right now to read all of the posts and won’t have time to check in again for awhile, I just want to clarify my first post: Regarding Alan’s main argument about selenium — Woodland could just dig more deep aquifer wells because the deep aquifer does not have a selenium problem. Woodland could surely benefit from the same program that I am suggesting for Davis. That is to phase in their surface water project after paying for their own wastewater treatment plant and first stages of the water project.
They so have to option of digging a few more dig aquifer wells to hold them over for the next approximately 20 years. That would take care of the selenium issue.
Now I know that you guys will come up with a thousand reasons why we have absolutely no option but to pay for $300 million of capitol improvements and water purchase simultaneously, but I do not think that this is the best policy decision.
Sue, please post a link or quote from any expert in the field who believes that the deep aquifer is a sustainable or preferable alternative.
Sue: 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]Woodland could just dig more deep aquifer wells because the deep aquifer does not have a selenium problem. Woodland could surely benefit from the same program that I am suggesting for Davis. That is to phase in their surface water project after paying for their own wastewater treatment plant and first stages of the water project.
They so have to option of digging a few more dig aquifer wells to hold them over for the next approximately 20 years. That would take care of the selenium issue.
Now I know that you guys will come up with a thousand reasons why we have absolutely no option but to pay for $300 million of capitol improvements and water purchase simultaneously, but I do not think that this is the best policy decision. [/quote]
Thus far you have not come up with a single expert willing to publicly endorse your solution of delay, delay, delay. Perhaps Woodland has decided it is in their best interests and far wiser to listen to the experts willing to speak publicly – and who emphatically endorse moving forward with the surface water project first and foremost and with reasoned logic. Those “thousand reasons” from your critics you seem to brush off as inconsequential have not been refuted by any expert, nor by the city/citizens of Woodland. It is the city of Woodland that has serious doubts about the wisdom of Davis, and I cannot say I blame them…
Did anyone see the Letter to the Editor from Susan Lovenburg, Trustee, DJUSD Davis on Wednesday? I will quote:
[quote]Will these separate needs – water and students – be pitted against one another? I trust not. Healthy, vibrant communities rely on an array of local services–education, safety, health and public works–that address the needs of the whole community. Let us debate each on their merits.
The quality of life in Davis tomorrow and for future generations depends upon the decisions we make today. Let’s proceed thoughtfully.[/quote]
[i]I apologize that I don’t have the time right now to read all of the posts and won’t have time to check in again for awhile, [/i]
No worries Sue. I’m think we’ve seen what you have to offer on the subject, and for those of us who are interested in information substantiated by written and researched papers, we don’t need more posts that reference unknown experts who whisper sweet nothings in your ear, but are unwilling to say the same things to the rest of us.
Great posts Don and Voter212(?) about the deep aquifer study; until your posts I think many on this forum (including myself) were not aware that such a recent scoping study had been performed.
I had thought that the well option would be ~10% capitol cost of the SWP option; good to get experienced professional opinions that it is likely closer to 50%, and has many risks associated with it.
Regarding treatment effluent: As I understand it, the main issues with groundwater are salinity and selenium; but according to Sue Greenwald the deep aquifer is low selenium–isn’t the deep aquifer also lower salinity than the intermediate aquifers (at least for now; perhaps until it starts drawing in intermediate aquifer water).
Also, have other options been looked at as far as where to discharge the effluent?
Or how about mixing some of the effluent with storm water (at least in winter), which is very low salinity?
This community simply cannot afford this expensive, gold plated project where even Dan Wolk says the fiscal and project planning are a mess. Sign the petition to immediately stay the hige rate hikes, and put this matter before the voters in June 2012. A broad-based community group has been working hard to collect the signatures. We have only two weeks to go. Please step up and help out now! Your signature on the petition does not mean you are for, or against, the surface water plant. It just means that you want to excercise your democratic right to vote on large tax increases. You have the right to vote on a parcel tax increase, or an increase in the sales tax. Why not this tax increase? For all, it will result in an increase of at least hundreds of dollars a year; for some, it will add thousands to their annual bills. DEMAND TO VOTE. Don’t let the CC majority treat you like children who are too young or adults who are too stupid to be trusted to vote on this. ONLY TWO WEEKS TO GO.
Who is the “Committee for the Protection of Taxpayer Rights” (or whatever they call themselves these days)?
I think the community has a right to know the names of the organizers of the self-appointed “committee” that is “protecting” us.
Every time this issue is brought up we get some vague pap about a broad-based populist uprising.
Who is pulling the strings besides Michael Harrington, Ernie Head, and Pam Nieberg?
“Page 3” is a duplicate of “Page 2” – again.
Hi Neutral,
I don’t know why that happens. It doesn’t affect the number of posts, and the posts themselves aren’t duplicates. So it’s a web site glitch.
Don
[quote]Your signature on the petition does not mean you are for, or against, the surface water plant. It just means that you want to excercise your democratic right to vote on large tax increases.[/quote]
If one is for moving ahead with the surface water project, why would one want to sign on to a petition you yourself have conceded is designed to kill this “gold plated project” as you put it?
It’s a good point Elaine and another point is I don’t like the idea being pushed forward that representative democracy is somehow not democracy. We elected our representatives to make decisions on our behalf, and fully educate themselves on issues. I’m not suggesting that they are always correct or that we should not monitor them (hence the Vanguard), but it is democracy. It’s also democracy that we have the right to overrule our representatives through initiative, refendum, election, or even recall.
[quote]It’s also democracy that we have the right to overrule our representatives through initiative, refendum, election, or even recall.[/quote]
Yes, I have no problem with the referendum – it is another part of the democratic process. But to characterize this particular referendum as anything but an attempt to kill the surface water project is disingenuous…
[i]””Page 3″ is a duplicate of “Page 2” – again”[/i]
It appears that the program code behind the blog counts the number of lines and when it gets to a certain number it adds a new “breadcrumb” link for the next page. However, the same code also is smart enough to not page break in the middle of a post so it leaves the last post on the prior page.
That is a bug. The code should only add the breadcrumb link to a new page when it has something to post on the new page.
“It’s also democracy that we have the right to overrule our representatives through initiative, refendum, election, or even recall.”
Nicely said David.
[quote]It’s also democracy that we have the right to overrule our representatives through initiative, refendum, election, or even recall.[/quote]Perhaps we could all agree — no matter how this plays out — to recall all elected officials responsible for any negative outcome, should one occur.
We have a baseline cost outlined in detail and on the table. If the referendum fails and there are cost overruns, I would support a recall of the council majority. If the referendum succeeds and we wind up with a more expensive outcome, I would support a recall of all sitting council members that were involved in derailing the plan (thus far that would be Sue if she gets re-elected, and Brett if he gets elected).
“Who is pulling the strings besides Michael Harrington, Ernie Head, and Pam Nieberg? “
..and who is pulling your strings, Voter 2012? Many of us have a very good idea who is behind your pseudonym. I will let the reader decide which is more credible, PAID, professional public relations activity or grassroots volunteerism.
[i]t’s also democracy that we have the right to overrule our representatives through initiative, refendum, election, or even recall. [/i]
This statement is true, but the fact that it is true doesn’t make it a good thing. The initiative process in CA ends up causing more problems than it solves, and in general creates poorly conceived and thought out laws. Voters do not have time or patience to study complex issues in detail, and to sort out the incorrect statements and hyperbole. Michael Harrington’s fanatical posts demonstrate that he believes hyperbolic and misleading statements will sway folks to sign up for the referendum.
[i]Many of us have a very good idea who is behind your pseudonym.[/i]
Just a reminder that we don’t ‘out’ people who choose to use a pseudonym here.
I hope we can just tone it all down and go about the business of putting it on the ballot.
Of course the folks who stand to gain millions from the project are going to be blogging and politicing all over the city. It’s routine, and expected. I’m not accusing anyone of nefarious motives as they try to make a living and protect the stream of cash that has been coming to them for many years, and will substantially increase if the higher rates are approved.
I’m not debating the merits here of the project itself; there will be 7 months for that.
Just put it on the ballot, and there will be a good exchange of data and analysis. The facts are the facts. If the project supporters are so confident of the merits of the project, then they should not worry about a referendum.
[i]”This community simply cannot afford this expensive, gold plated project”[/i]
I still don’t see anything that refutes the cost risks of delay and/or explains a viable alternative. I would vote for a painted particle board project if it made sense.
How about we get some leadership for a positive alternative solution instead of just building a head of steam bent on blocking the ideas that others propose?
Mike, you might approach this as an attorney simply trying to win a case, but don’t you have to admit that some solution is required? What is it that you support other than the case against the surface water project?
David M. Greenwald said …
“[i]It’s a good point Elaine and another point is I don’t like the idea being pushed forward that representative democracy is somehow not democracy. We elected our representatives to make decisions on our behalf, and fully educate themselves on issues. I’m not suggesting that they are always correct or that we should not monitor them (hence the Vanguard), but it is democracy. It’s also democracy that we have the right to overrule our representatives through initiative, referendum, election, or even recall.[/i]”
E Roberts Musser said . . .
“[i]Yes, I have no problem with the referendum – it is another part of the democratic process. But to characterize this particular referendum as anything but an attempt to kill the surface water project is disingenuous…[/i]”
You can add me to David and Elaine’s line of thinking above. I agree with Dan Wolk that the pair of projects needs further planning, but killing the project as Mike Harrington and Sue Greenwald desire is simply kicking the Davis water problem on to our children’s generation.
If this does make it to a ballot, will the typical voter actually know enough about the deep acquifer, or well-head water treatment, or post treatment brine disposal (costs and environmental impacts), or subsidence damage to well equipment, or SWRCB fines, or a myriad of other issues? Some clearly will, but many will simply be too busy to do so. That makes the value of the vote rather manechean. It will simply boil down to “stop the project” or “go forward.” Unfortunately, the planning issues Dan Wolk has raised won’t be addressed at all by a ballot.
I think that citing Dan Wolk on behalf of the referendum is misplaced unless someone actually has him on record as doing so. If he supported a vote on this, I think he would have proposed that in council. But I’m sure he’d be happy to address this: dwolk@cityofdavis.org
Michael Harrington said . . .
“[i]I hope we can just tone it all down and go about the business of putting it on the ballot.
I’m not debating the merits here of the project itself; there will be 7 months for that.
Just put it on the ballot, and there will be a good exchange of data and analysis. The facts are the facts.[/i]”
Mike, what facts do you expect to come out in the 7 months that haven’t come out to date? There has been robust communication about the project over the past 24 months and only a small portion of the community has chosen to do any personal due diligence on the facts. Why do you expect the next 7 months to be different from the most recent 24 months?
Don Shor said . . .
“[i]I think that citing Dan Wolk on behalf of the referendum is misplaced unless someone actually has him on record as doing so. If he supported a vote on this, I think he would have proposed that in council. But I’m sure he’d be happy to address this: ‘> dwolk@cityofdavis.org[/i]”
Point well taken Don. Please feel free to edit my post to reflect that “it has been reported that …” or “regarding Mike Harrington’s report that …”
[quote] I’m not accusing anyone of nefarious motives as they try to make a living and protect the stream of cash that has been coming to them for many years, and will substantially increase if the higher rates are approved. [/quote]
So if I am in favor of moving this project forward sooner rather than later, what stream of cash coming to me for years am I protecting for myself?
[quote]I would support a recall of all sitting council members that were involved in derailing the plan (thus far that would be Sue if she gets re-elected, and Brett if he gets elected).[/quote]
I don’t think Brett is in favor of derailing the project at all. Brett can feel free to jump in and clarify, but I DO NOT PUT BRETT IN THE SAME CAMP AS COUNCIL MEMBER GREENWALD. Ms. Greenwald WANTS TO DELAY, DELAY, DELAY THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT FOR 25 TO 30 YEARS…
[quote]I’m not debating the merits here of the project itself;[/quote]
It would seem to me the “merits” of the project (cost/benefit/risk) are what is critical…
Voter2012: pulling strings for the referendum? No single person. It’s a broad based community effort. We have walkers, tablers, and concerned campaign helpers all over the city. People are demanding to directly vote on higher taxes, just like they did for the sales tax, parcel taxes, even Measure O (open space).
I don’t consider for a minute that someone signing the petition to put it on the ballot is necessarily going to vote to repeal the rate hikes.
In fact, the petition explicitly says that the signers are asking that the rate hike be repealed OR that it be on the ballot:
“We, the undersigned, are duly registered and qualified voters of the City of Davis, California. We hereby protest the
adoption of Ordinance Number 2381, adopted by the City Council on September 20, 2011 (attested on September 22, 2011) and request that Ordinance Number 2381 be reconsidered and repealed by the City Council or that it be submitted to a vote of the People of the City of Davis at the next regular election or at a special election called for that purpose pursuant to Cal. Elec. Code section 9241.”
**************************************
What’s not to love about the idea of a huge tax increase going on the ballot? I don’t understand the controversy. Taking a time out for a few months to let the school parcel tax renewal have a clean shot in March, and for the community to debate the merits of the tax increase and the project, is not a bad thing, is it?
I need to make something clear, as there has been some negative tones here about the motivations of people.
I dont have any problem with Voter2012 being paid, or not. He/she is a good advocate for the project, and I can respect and work with that professionalism.
The facts will make or break this project, and there is nothing any of us can do about those facts other than fully air them, debate, discuss, and vote.
So long as there was a good discussion of the merits, and people get to vote, we all will accept that outcome.
In fact, if the project proponents are so confident that their project is the best way to go, they really should be endorsing this process since it will lead to community-wide ratification of the fiscal program and the facility itself, right?
Who can argue if the project wins, maybe even wins big, after a fair election?
Mike Harrington said . . .
“[i]The facts will make or break this project, and there is nothing any of us can do about those facts other than fully air them, debate, discuss, and vote.[/i]”
Mike, what facts have not been fully aired, debated, and discussed over the past 24 months?
To my good friends Don and Matt: I dont mean to paraphrase Dan Wolk incorrectly. You can read his words directly in the Op Ed Piece that he wrote some weeks ago for the Davis Enterprise. My “edited for my favoirite Blog” version of what Dan wrote is that the project is a fiscal mess and would benefit from some re-crafting. He sought to delay it a year to try to fix some things, but did not get the third vote.
I give Dan a huge amount of credit for recognizing some flaws and trying to fix them.
Well, if we can get this refernedum qualified in the next two weeks it will stay the rate hikes, and maybe Dan and his colleagues will ask that the matter be reconsidered, repealed, and a better, less expensive project proposed.
I do ask that if the CC dumps this current proposal and comes up with a new one, they should automatically put it on the ballot. We are burning up a lot of community volunteer energy that I would hope could instead be focused on getting the school parcel taxes renewed in March.
Remember: as it stands right now, the rate hikes go into effect 12/1, and they will appear in the February bills, or only days before the March 2012 election date for renewal of the school taxes. Who the heck came up with that brilliant timing? “How to kill the schools without trying.”
Mike Harrington said . . .
“Who can argue if the project wins, maybe even wins big, after a fair election?”
The problem is that the reported “planning deficit” will not be addressed at all by a winning election result. That “planning deficit” needs to be addressed [u]now[/u].
As I have said before, the biggest planning flaw I see with this pair of projects is that the wastewater treatment project isn’t being sequenced to follow the surface water project. If we wait for the surface water to come live, most of the “bad” constituents (selenium, salinity, etc.) will be removed from the inputs to the wastewater treatment plant. I believe that will mean that the only remaining wastewater treatment plant upgrade needed will be the tertiary filtration, which isn’t required until October 2017.
Mike, your answer above doesn’t answer the question asked “[i][b]Mike, what facts have not been fully aired, debated, and discussed over the past 24 months?[/b][/i]”
Matt, I agree with you; these projects are all balled up. And now they have the huge water tax hike bills showing up in mailboxes immediately before the school ballot. Unbelieveable!
As I have said repeatedly, the surface water project is being driven by the consultants who make money from it, and they are mostly not from Davis and don’t have a clue what matters here, like the schools.
I know that the CC majority approved it with the bad timing, but I know that those consultants were demanding the project be on a “rocket docket” schedule that so far as I can tell, is all about the consultants, and not about our ratepayers or their children’s best interests.
Mike, again, your answer above doesn’t answer the question asked, [b]”What [u]facts[/u] have not been fully aired, debated, and discussed over the past 24 months?” [/b]
I could be wrong, but the issues you’ve outlined above (timing vis-a-vis the schools, etc.) appear to be political issues not facts.
The over 24 months that the surface water project has been actively aired, debated, and discussed would appear to this observer to be anything but a “[i]rocket docket[/i]”? Have the citizens of Davis not been following/attending the meetings/discussions over that 24 month period? If the answer to that question is “[i]Yes,[/i]” what makes you believe those citizens will pay any more attention between now and a ballot day?
For the record, I am a Davis resident. I am not a developer. I am not a political professional/consultant. I have not received any income, monetary benefit, quid pro quo, etc. related to any water project (including PR, advocacy, etc.) and will not receive any in the future. The smears directed at me are untrue. If you want to know why I post under a pseudonym, you already have your answer. It is inevitable that anyone that aggressively opposes the agenda of these people is going to get smeared, and I choose to remain anonymous to minimize the stress on my family, friends, and career. The alternative is to just be silent and watch the community continue to decay. They want me to go away and shut up, but that’s not going to happen.
Just got back home from Safeway. Talked to the signature gatherer that was out front and he said it’s going great and feels that it will be no problem to get the required number. He said most of the signatures are coming from seniors. No surprise there with them being on fixed incomes and all. The people will decide so everyone should just relax and accept that.
@ Michael Harrington: “Of course the folks who stand to gain millions from the project are going to be blogging and politicing all over the city. It’s routine, and expected. I’m not accusing anyone of nefarious motives as they try to make a living and protect the stream of cash that has been coming to them for many years, and will substantially increase if the higher rates are approved.”
This is a remarkably tone-deaf statement from someone who was advocating on behalf of Parlin Development and had a clear financial conflict of interest.
@ Michael Harrington: “I need to make something clear, as there has been some negative tones here about the motivations of people.
I dont have any problem with Voter2012 being paid, or not. He/she is a good advocate for the project, and I can respect and work with that professionalism.”
It’s a little late for that now that I’ve been smeared by both your innuendo and your surrogates.
Voter2012: “Who is the “Committee for the Protection of Taxpayer Rights” (or whatever they call themselves these days)?
I think the community has a right to know the names of the organizers of the self-appointed “committee” that is “protecting” us.
Every time this issue is brought up we get some vague pap about a broad-based populist uprising.
Who is pulling the strings besides Michael Harrington, Ernie Head, and Pam Nieberg?”
Michael Harrington: “No single person. It’s a broad based community effort. We have walkers, tablers, and concerned campaign helpers all over the city.”
Still dodging the answer. This is just more “vague pap about a broad-based populist uprising.”
Who are the committee members? You are promoting a referendum to unravel a huge amount of work done by a huge number of people on behalf of the entire Davis community (not to mention Woodland and UCD). IMO the voters have a right to know who is behind it.
“For the record, I am a Davis resident. I am not a developer. I am not a political professional/consultant.”
All most likely true, but political PR work can certainly be part of the paid job description of other than political professional consultants.
Voter2012: have I said you are being paid? (Who cares, anyway??)
What have I said to smear you? Nothing that I can think of. I thought I was paying you a compliment, which you deserve, because your posts are usually focused, professional, literate, and quite deliberate. You reach many conclusions that I cannot agree with, but that’s OK; we just disagree.
My surrogates smeared you? Who did? I’m not directing other bloggers here. What hurt your feelings? Tell that person and see if they respond.
I think the discussion has been very nice and professional, to be honest.
OK, time to go collect some signatures and meet those great Davis voters!
See ya around town!
[quote]All most likely true, but political PR work can certainly be part of the paid job description of other than political professional consultants.[/quote]
I am a citizen of Davis. I don’t expect any cash or benefits political or otherwise from the surface water project. I am a supporter of this project because I believe when all is considered, it is the best/safest approach, and I did not come to that decision quickly or lightly. Just because someone favors the surface water project should not make their motives somehow suspect or impure… I have also stated publicly that if citizens choose to put this on a referendum, I have no problem with that – it is their democratic right to do so.
I have just removed one post, and please note that any further attempts to ascribe specific professional status to individual pseudonymous blog participants will be removed.
[quote]What have I said to smear you?[/quote]
Try these:
[quote]Of course the folks who stand to gain millions from the project are going to be blogging and politicing all over the city. It’s routine, and expected. I’m not accusing anyone of nefarious motives as they try to make a living and protect the stream of cash that has been coming to them for many years, and will substantially increase if the higher rates are approved[/quote]
[quote]the surface water project is being driven by the consultants who make money from it, and they are mostly not from Davis and don’t have a clue what matters here, like the schools[quote]
[quote]I know that those consultants were demanding the project be on a “rocket docket” schedule that so far as I can tell, is all about the consultants, and not about our ratepayers or their children’s best interests. [/quote]
Dan Wolk, in his own words:
Let’s make sure we get this water project right
By Dan Wolk
As the new kid on the block on the City Council, Sept. 6 was my first chance to really weigh in on the very important issue of our drinking water.
That’s not to say I’m a stranger to the issue. In my other job, I am the primary water attorney for Solano County — one of the five counties, along with Yolo, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Through my job I am very familiar with water-related issues and work closely with several water agencies, including the Solano County Water Agency, manager of Solano’s water system and a beneficiary of water delivered through Lake Berryessa and the Monticello Dam.
I take issue with both sides of this debate. On one side, there are those who do not believe that we need to move away from our sole reliance on groundwater to a surface water supply. But this is simply untenable. Groundwater is environmentally unsustainable. Not only is the supply of quality drinking water shrinking, it’s also high in nitrates as well as chromium, selenium and other harmful water quality constituents.
And although it would be easier to kick the can down the road, this would be a dereliction of my civic duty. My generation — and my children’s generation — is bearing the burden of the lack of long-term planning in unfunded liabilities and crumbling infrastructure. And nowhere is that more evident than with this water project.
When they grow up, I do not want my children to say that I had an opportunity to make the necessary investment in our future and did not do it.
For these reasons, I support bringing surface water to Davis.
But when it comes to how the proposed surface water project has been and will be carried out, and the projected rates, I have some real problems. And this is where those championing the water project have failed. The problems include:
* The process has lacked transparency. Consultants and decisions have been too distant from press coverage, the City Council and ultimately the community. This is partly due to the fact that the project is being guided by a joint powers authority, and not directly by the city.
(In my experience, JPAs work well where there is consensus. But there is no consensus here.)
* The project will be privately run. It is planned as a design-build-operate model, which means a private company will be in charge of providing the city water. It should be run publicly, not privately. Our state constitution expressly demands that water belongs to the people.
* We have not sufficiently sought flexibility on the project’s timeline. We should be trying to do as much as we can to spread out the rate increases, including seeking a variance from the state and engaging our state and federal legislative delegation to assist us.
* Only three entities will be allowed to bid on the project. This does not encourage competition and cost savings.
* It is not clear who will monitor construction and compliance. And who will monitor to ensure the bond rate and financing plan are reasonable?
* It’s not clear we’ve exhausted all funding opportunities. Money will be flowing for delta restoration and there is water bond funding — have we looked at that? Could the open space tax (Measure O) help pay for certain items (say, the project’s fish screen) since the project will help protect natural resources?
What about utilizing a portion of our sales tax, since all visitors, users of facilities, hotels, restaurants and the like will benefit from having clean water?
* There is no plan in place to assist those who are low-income or on fixed incomes. What about our affordable housing programs?
* We are in the midst of a historic and tenacious recession. Asking community members to significantly raise their water rates at this time is difficult.
The sum of all this is that the process has lacked credibility and the public has not adequately bought into it. This is evidenced by the almost 5,000 ratepayers who protested.
I, for one, heard you loud and clear. Although I did not have the three votes necessary for an alternative one-year rate proposal to the five-year rate schedule, I was able to fashion a motion that will greatly strengthen the process, result in greater openness and oversight, and ideally reduce costs for the overall project. The motion that eventually was adopted essentially includes:
* Maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year for five years only.
* In 12 months, and every year thereafter, the City Council must revisit the rates and vote on whether to lower them.
* Formation of a technical advisory committee appointed by the City Council to review the project, bid process, bond terms and any other financial matter related to the construction and operation of the water project.
My appointees will be Helen Thomson, former Yolo County supervisor and state Assembly member, and Alf Brandt, principal consultant of the Assembly Select Committee on Regional Approaches to Addressing the State’s Water Crisis.
* Ensure that any significant decision by the JPA be brought before the council.
* Analyze and make recommendations on a possible public-operation of the project.
* Seek flexibility on the timelines for the project and raising capital, including requesting the assistance of the city’s legislative delegation, with the goal of stretching out the rate schedule. This includes seeking a variance, if possible.
* Seek guarantees to ensure that the project will use only local and regional businesses and labor, to the maximum extent feasible.
* Utilize — and lobby for — as much federal and state funding as possible, including state water bonds and potential delta restoration dollars directed toward the Yolo Bypass. Look also at utilizing other local dollars besides user fees.
* In addition to the city’s current conservation efforts, access state and federal funds if feasible to offset the costs to residents of implementing water conservation strategies or replacing equipment.
* Provide for regular community meetings and updates.
* Explore the creation of a rate-subsidy program for low-income households.
I tend to think of this water project as a mountain we have to climb. On Sept. 6, the City Council got to base camp. But before we climb much farther, we need to make sure we’re climbing the right path. This approved motion, and the tireless effort of residents like you, will do that.
We cannot fail. Let’s make sure we get this project right.
— Dan Wolk is a member of the Davis City Council.
Short URL: http://www.davisenterprise.com/?p=81401
For the record – I also don’t do political PR work.
@Michael Harrington: “OK, time to go collect some signatures and meet those great Davis voters! See ya around town!”
Make sure you tell those great Davis voters that:
(1) our $155 M share is really going to cost us half a billion because the city council majority and staff are either too incompetent to run the numbers or too dishonest to tell us the truth.
(2) Woodland is going to welsh on their end of the bargain and leave us holding the bag.
(3) all the consultants are corrupt and just recommending that we proceed with the project to enrich themselves.
(4) everything is hunky dory with the aquifers and those pesky regulators can’t make us pay to clean up our pollution.
(5) once you and your crew go to work on revising the plan it’s going to be soooo much better than the c@#p that an army of staffers, public servants, and consultants have spent years putting together at taxpayer expense.
(6) if you can’t kill the scheduled rate increases then (big sigh) we really just can’t afford to support the schools.
(7) and last, but certainly not least, please elect our “Committee to Foment a Rate Payer Revolt” candidate(s) in June 2012.
@davisite2(9:449 am): “..and who is pulling your strings, Voter 2012? Many of us have a very good idea who is behind your pseudonym. I will let the reader decide which is more credible, PAID, professional public relations activity or grassroots volunteerism.”
davisite2: You are so far off the mark it’s laughable. I pity the poor bystander that’s being blamed for my posts. Although I would love to debate this with you, unfortunately I’m going to pass because (to quote Ron White) “you can’t fix stupid.”
Don: Sorry. I can’t resist. I won’t object if you remove both posts.
[b]VOTER2012[/b]
My concern is that the total cost of new water-related infrastructure and supplementary water purchase is $300 million ($155 million surface water, $100 million new wastewater treatment plant, $8 million new east area tank). That is undeniably an extraordinarily high debt load for a town of 65,000 (maybe about 70,000 for the water project component).
That is why I think that we should try to phase in the projects if possible, even though I would prefer to have softer water and can personally afford it.
It isn’t the $155 million that is the problem; it is the $300 million at one time.
I don’t know why this discussion has become so vicious and emotional. It’s an important discussion to have, regardless of the side of the issue that you come down on.
I want to reiterate something here:
We have a policy that anonymous and pseudonymous posters will not be ‘outed’ by others. That has been policy from the start. We prefer that people post under their own names, but David and I have discussed the pros and cons of allowing anonymity and have decided to allow it.
On several occasions I have edited attempts to ‘out’ people, including some who are now trying to ‘out’ Voter2012. I have protected your rights to participate anonymously. I won’t allow anyone to deny that right to others.
I do thank those of you who post under your own names. We know there is sometimes blowback for taking a public position on a controversial issue. I especially appreciate those public officials who participate here. Sue in particular deserves a lot of credit for spelling out her positions in detail and defending them. And at this point I think a majority of the sitting council members has posted on the Vanguard.
[i]”I do thank those of you who post under your own names. We know there is sometimes blowback for taking a public position on a controversial issue.”[/i]
I resemble that remark. You should see the looks I get from that guy that owns Redwood Barn! 😉
Seriously though… it is a shame that more of us do not feel comfortable using our real name. I understand why, but it is still a shame.
In general, I think most of us (including me) need some continued growth and development in civil discourse. There are two sides to this though… the sender and receiver. I have always tended to be direct and have been accused many times of being insensitive (just ask my employees). I try to work on that, but I also ask those with high sensing tendencies to work on accepting conversation that is more direct. It is so difficult to get anything done walking on sensitivity egg shells all the time. Personally, I would like to raise my voice and pound my fist passionately about the issues and tell someone when I think they are wrong without them taking it as a personal attack. The trick is to not ever let it get personal. We should also all be open to the data and opinions of others. None of us are all knowing.
This water project issue is a very important one. As CCM-Sue points out, $300MM is a lot of money to spend for a city our size. There are plenty of points to debate without it getting personal. I doubt there is a single person contributing to this conversation that does not believe he/she is arguing for the greater good. That is the common shared goal that we should focus on… the greater good.
Back to the issue, I need someone to explain the two bond financing scenarios and how that would help rate payers if we delay. My thinking… even if we assume a future surface water project cost increase matching the rate of inflation; it is still going to require a rate increase at some point, is it not?
Now, many residents do not discriminate on what they are paying for city services and some of their utility costs. What assurances can be provided that rates for garbage and power, for example, will not increase greater than the rate of inflation? Assuming this happens… wouldn’t it really suck to have to these delayed surface water rates hit at the same time?
For me, we either need to do this project or we don’t need to do it. If we need to do it, we should do it now so we pay off the bond debt as soon as possible so that at least our water rates stay stable for our future generations. I know so many young people with a college degree unable to get a job. The last thing I want to do is saddle them with a bigger water bill 15-20 years from now. They are likely to be paying higher taxes and fees for everything else we adults screwed up.
Then again, maybe Herman Cain will win the election and we will implement his 9-9-9 tax plan and the US standard of living will get another big free-market boost and the increased tax revenue will make a delayed surface water project an easier pill to swallow. Oh wait… this is California… never mind.
Jeff, I’m on the Cain Train.
Rusty, you are a Grateful Dead fan?
[img]http://hermancainfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Herman-Cain-little-engine.png[/img]
Driving that train, high on Herm Cain,
Rick Perry, you better watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind,
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
This old engine makes it on time,
Leaves Central Station ’bout a quarter to nine,
Hits River Junction at seventeen to,
At a quarter to ten you know it’s drivin again.
Driving that train, high on Herm Cain,
Mitt Romney you better watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind,
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
Trouble ahead, Bachmann in red,
Take my advice you’d be better off dead.
Switchman’s sleeping, train hundred and two is
On the wrong track and headed for you.
Driving that train, high on Herm Cain,
Santorum you beter watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, you know trouble behind,
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
Got two good eyes but WE still don’t see.
Come round the bend, you know it’s the end,
The fireman screams and the engine just gleams…
Driving that train, high on Herm Cain,
Newt Gingrich you better watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind,
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
Driving that train, high on Herm Cain,
John Huntsman you better watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind,
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
Driving that train, high on Herm Cain,
Chris Christie you better watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, you know, trouble behind.
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
Driving that train, high on Herm Cain,
Sarah Palin you better watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, you know, trouble behind.
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
Right on Rusty. I like him too. I talk to a lot of conservative and right-leaning moderates that are jumpting on the train too. Let’s watch the the liberal media and entrenched political establishment try to chew him up and spit him out.
Matt, Re:
“As I have said before, the biggest planning flaw I see with this pair of projects is that the wastewater treatment project isn’t being sequenced to follow the surface water project. If we wait for the surface water to come live, most of the “bad” constituents (selenium, salinity, etc.) will be removed from the inputs to the wastewater treatment plant. I believe that will mean that the only remaining wastewater treatment plant upgrade needed will be the tertiary filtration, which isn’t required until October 2017.”
Does this mean that if the surface water project is approved, we can scale way back on the water treatment plant upgrades? I’ve forgotton the cost of the water treatment upgrade (?around $100 million?); could that cost be cut by about half if we get the low saline and selenium surface water?
If so, this would seem to be a very important point; can someone address this?
Great discussions here; Democracy in Action; strong opinions expressed pro and con; good to see!
Dan Wolk summed up some points very nicely above; thank you!
jimt, I think a lot of the cost reductions that have been achieved to date have been because of the assumed inputs under the surface water scenario, so while there may be further achievable cost reductions, they may not be huge.
The keys for me to why this makes sense are threefold.
1) if the surface water project is delayed as Sue wants, or killed completely as Mike Harrington wants, then the mandated changes in the wastewater treatment project will have to deal with the high selenium content and high salinity content of the input streams (due to the well water sources). That certainly is going to put multiple tens of millions of dollars back into the wastewater treatment project. It isn’t beyond the imagination to think the added requirements will add back as much as $100 million.
2) as has been noted here by Alan Pryor, continuing to use well water may add upwards of $50 million in well infrastructure costs over the 20-30 years Sue wants to delay the surface water project.
3) if the Wastewater Project can be delayed, then the current stream of “capital setaside” dollars from the existing Sewer fees can be used to defray the capital costs of the surface water project in the early years. I’m currently trying to nail down what that annual contribution is, but it is my hearsay understanding that it is in the $8 million to $10 million per year range, and that there is already something like $20 million already accrued. If the cash requirements of the Wastewater project can be delayed until at least 2017, then the first $76 – $90 million ($20 million plus 7 years of $8 – $10 million) of the Surface Water project costs could be paid off from the existing Sewer fees. That would [u]substantially reduce[/u] the amount of the “capital setaside” that would have to come from Water fees. It is even possible that the whole $150 million could be paid off before the capital costs for the Wastewater project need to begin in 2017.
As I said I am trying to run accurate numbers down and will keep you posted on my progress.
An interesting piece of information that DMG can perhaps research is whether completion of Woodland’s massive Spring Lake residential development plan is dependent on this surface water project to supply the additional water needed to satisfy State law that water supply must be identified before residential developments can be approved. Is it only a portion of the planned 5000 home Woodland development approved with the now available water supply?
[quote]I don’t know why this discussion has become so vicious and emotional. It’s an important discussion to have, regardless of the side of the issue that you come down on.[/quote]
If you tone it down, I think others will perhaps…
[quote]An interesting piece of information that DMG can perhaps research is whether completion of Woodland’s massive Spring Lake residential development plan is dependent on this surface water project to supply the additional water needed to satisfy State law that water supply must be identified before residential developments can be approved. Is it only a portion of the planned 5000 home Woodland development approved with the now available water supply?[/quote]
Now this is about Spring Lake? Nice try…
Spring Lake Specific Plan, water and public facilities component:
[url]http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5918[/url]
If you tone it down, I think others will perhaps…”
IMO Sue has kept a civil attitude on here, for the most part it’s others that have attacked her.
“Spring Lake Specific Plan, water and public facilities component:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/…lobID=5918″
My read of the preliminary SLSP is that the city of Woodland states that it has sufficient ground water of acceptable quality to meet the demands of this new development. I believe that Woodland is not the authority that makes that legal determination. It also states that more municipal wells will have to be drilled to meet the demands of Spring Lake. The water to supply Spring Lake will have to be developed, the plan calling for more well drilling(which ultimately may not be found acceptable by the State in both amount and quality). I wonder if the developers would be assessed directly for the added wells necessary for their development as opposed to a surface water pipeline that is in place and paid for by Woodland voters(their share) with developers having to pay for the connecting costs…sounds similar to what is planned to be in place for Davis developers.
….and, as I remember from another recommended link which stated that there has been no in-depth study of Yolo groundwater capacity and recharge rates, Woodland’s pronouncement, that there is sufficient ground water to meet the legal requirements to go forward with the Spring Lake developments, may have little real data to support their conclusion.
[i]from another recommended link which stated that there has been no in-depth study of Yolo groundwater capacity and recharge rates[/i]
Which link was that?
rusty, I agree with you that Sue hasn’t been the problem vis-a-vis civil attitude. The fickle finger of fate for that points at Mike Harington, who has thrown around his variations of “see you at the polls” smack talk, and when asked a direct question about any facts that haven’t been discussed simply disappeared. Mike, who I usually like, has been little more than a troll in this thread.
“Which link was that?”
Don…This was a link that you offered concerning analysis of the aquifers in question which offered a final summary statement that to date there have been no studies done that offer meaningful data as to “recharge rate of the Yolo aquifers”. As I remember, it also spoke of the lack of good information about Yolo aquifer capacity.
Probably this one; I’ve linked to the pertinent part of the report, I think:
[url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/chapt3d.html[/url]
But note that the overdraft is confirmed, just the “precise degree” is not.
“Despite the inability to accurately pinpoint the exact state of overdraft, overdraft conditions in the County are evident from the progressive decline in groundwater elevations in many parts, from subsidence problems and water quality problems. A review of these groundwater problems follows.”
From the other report, which we are referring to here as Fogg et al., it is clear the same results would be expected from overdraft of the deep aquifer.
Continued reliance on the intermediate aquifer, and increased use of the deep aquifer, is not a sustainable solution for Davis.
“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(my caps)
Estimated overdraft, average year: (7,300) ~ 35,700
Estimated overdraft, severe drought years: 490,900 ~ 533,900
Why would you pay to study how much overdraft is occurring when
(1) overdraft is obviously occurring due to subsidence and other obvious symptoms.
(2) we can’t continue using that aquifer anyway;
(3) the deep aquifer basically doesn’t recharge, thus
(4) any increased use of the deep aquifer overdrafts it, interferes with UCD wells, and doesn’t prevent the eventual need for the surface water?
The slope of the overdraft curve would offer a timeline for when a significant overdaft problem would be expected. This timeline is critical to a plan to phase- in a surface water project when personal and government coffers improve in the future to make the financial “hit” less of a threat to Davis’ “quality of life”. The argument that the aquifer is unsustainable is a “straw man’ with regard to this plan to phase-in the surface water project since it does not suggest using the groundwater resource as a sole supply source forever.
My postings on this thread spoke to the topic of the Vanguard piece and centered around Woodland’s plans to supply water to Spring Lake and the probability that the surface water project would be critical to these developer interests. The SLSP talks about drilling more intermediate wells to supply the development which remains porblematic, not deep aquifer wells with limited recharge capability.
Subsidence is already occurring.
Matt,
Thanks for good info. on the wastewater treatment contingencies and costs.
I think if Davis voters realized that without the surface water project, we would need additional upgrades on wastewater treatment to the tune of many 10s of millions of dollars; this could sway the vote (it could for me).
We need some sort of a balance sheet on risks and costs (deep groundwater vs. SWP) to present to the voter; which includes the contingent costs of wastewater treatment. If it is true that obtaining deep groundwater is likely to cost about 50% as much as the SWP; and if additionally several 10s of millions more will be needed for wastewater treatment if we go with groundwater; then it seems that the groundwater option might in the end be almost as expensive as the surface water project; and with a lot more associated risks of subsidence, depletion, etc.
Davis voters would benefit by having a side-by-side comparison of main costs and risks for the two options.
(Seems to me Davis should be able to get a 1-2 year variance to sort all this out and make it clear; as well as address other issues associated with the project).
jimt said . . .
“[i]We need some sort of a balance sheet on risks and costs (deep groundwater vs. SWP) to present to the voter; which includes the contingent costs of wastewater treatment.[/i]”
I’m working on it. The sooner it is done with solid numbers the better.
Bear in mind that most are saying the deep groundwater would be a temporary measure, followed by the surface water project at some undetermined future time (2,3,4 years; 5 years; 10 years; 15 – 25 years….). So Davis residents would eventually pay for both.
Don: [i]”Bear in mind that most are saying the deep groundwater would be a temporary measure, followed by the surface water project at some undetermined future time (2,3,4 years; 5 years; 10 years; 15 – 25 years….). So Davis residents would eventually pay for both.”[/i]
It is aggravating that anyone would support this approach… ultimately paying significantly more just to delay and push the expense to a future date on the hope that things will be financially better. What economic forecast are these people relying on? Have they not paid any attention to the estimates for our national economy? The aging of the US population; the costs for food, energy and healthcare; the pension costs for city employees… these are all facts leading to a worse financial situation not a better one. We need to stop making the assumption that we will have a better economic outlook in the future when nothing supports that view. Blind hope is not acceptable decision criteria.
[quote]IMO Sue has kept a civil attitude on here, for the most part it’s others that have attacked her.[/quote]
Having been personally on the business end of Sue’s uncivil tongue on the blog and elsewhere in public when I have disagreed with her position (“waspish” among others was an interesting term Sue flung at me on this blog), we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I would much prefer everyone to keep as civil as possible, but I will not stand by and remain silent when I am personally attacked or have my integrity called into question for holding opinions opposite to that of the attacker…
Elaine, I get your point, but when did being called “waspish” become a personal attack? It seems more indicative of bias of a certain group. One certainly can’t help being born into a wasp family, but anti-waspishness is an adopted behavior. Might an appropriate response be that Sue an others demonstrate some bias against the wasp group?
Jeff I think the reference was to “waspish” behavior, rather than belonging to the WASP demographic group.
Matt,
Thanks. Got it. I wasn’t familiar with the term for some reason and made a wrong assumption. That is a bit of a personal attack. We should have none of that.
from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
[quote]Definition of WASPISH
1: resembling a wasp in behavior; especially : snappish, petulant [/quote]
Yes, I merely meant snappish.
These are important issues, and worthy of discussion. I haven’t ridiculed the idea of spending $300 million on important water related infrastructure and related purchases at the same time. I just think it that $300 million is too great a debt burden for water-related projects for a down of 65,000.[quote]This is extremely disingenuous. Sue has been critical of UCD having an option to buy-in after the project is completed. And now she argues that Davis should do the same thing to Woodland? Give me a break. And on what planet does one city overbuild infrastructure capacity by 40-50% just in case a neighboring city might want to buy-in at some future date? — [b]Voter2012[/b][/quote]I would be thrilled if Davis, UC Davis and Woodland would agree to phase in this project. I was displeased that the University was pressuring us to complete the project now when they did not want to help pay for it now. I certainly don’t advocate pressuring Woodland to complete the project now — far from it.
Correction:
These are important issues, and worthy of discussion. I haven’t ridiculed the idea of spending $300 million on important water related infrastructure and related purchases at the same time. I just think it that $300 million is too great a debt burden for water-related projects for a town of 65,000 to undertake at one time. I would prefer to explore the concept of phasing in the project.
[quote]1) Council member Greenwald is trying to shop around and cherry pick another expert who will publicly agree with her position of delaying the surface water project for 25 to 30 years, an expert named Dr. Fogg, or so she says.– [b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]This kind of comment degrades the discussion.
Graham Fogg is probably the leading UC Davis expert in groundwater. He is an ardent fan of conjunctive use. I have suggested that we hire him to oversee a thorough study of the aquifer.
Dr. Tchabonaglous and Schroeder are leading hydrologists, but they are not groundwater experts like Dr. Fogg, they are not surface water experts like Dr. Lund, and they are not particularly abreast of what is going on at the SWRCB. Dr. Tchabonaglous would be the first to admit it.
Many of the arguments presented here and papers cited were correct given the conditions at the time, but their are potential changes in the regulations concerning salinity which have changed the picture.
This applies to Don’s edgy comments about digging more wells also.
If we could get a salinity variance, it would dramatically increase our options. Continually citing studies from a period before the time when variances were a possibility in order to say that we have absolutely no options to pursue is a distraction.
[quote]Re: Sue’s Comments – “The fact that I have reached out to outside experts for advice saved the city $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant. When you save the city $100 million by reaching out to the “unnamed” sources, then you might be more entitled to speak in a supercilious manner.”
Sue Greenwald has repeatedly stated that she “personally” saved the City this money which is no more true than if I claimed my it was my dog, Spot, that saved the City the money.–[b]Alan Pryor[/b][/quote]This is so typical of the nasty tone that has pervaded the discussion of the surface water project.
What I said, Alan Pryor, is that I saved the city $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant in that if I had not been on the council, the contract for the $200 million plant would have been signed.
In fact, the other members of the council at the time had resisted my attempts to have to $200 million project reviews by the experts I had recommended for about a year.