Both the Woodland Daily Democrat and Sacramento Bee came out with scathing editorials, giving it to Davis for the delay on the water project. The papers come from very different places, and miss the mark in different ways.
The Woodland Daily Democrat called it a “short-sighted view on water in Davis,” and argued, “A majority of the Davis City Council bowed to political expediency and decided to repeal a 14-percent increase in water rates approved only three months ago.”
They added, “It was a short-sighted decision by the Davis council which could easily come back to haunt it in years to come.” Moreover, they added, “A number of vociferous Davis residents objected to the rate hike and the expense…”
The problem with this view is the same problem that the six Woodland leaders faced when they came down to the city council – they are ignoring the fact that the Davis voters, 3800 of them, signed a petition to put the matter to a vote. So, when they accuse the council of bowing to political expediency, they are missing the mark by a mile.
The Davis City Council did not have any choice. They can’t ignore the signature petition to put the matter up for referendum. That’s not political expediency, that is reality.
The fact of the matter is that the voters of Davis felt short-changed on the process. Many felt disenfranchised by the Prop 218 process. They felt that the rates were set too high, that they were arbitrary, and most importantly, they were convoluted. Nobody simply reading the rates knew what they would pay, because it was based on some notion of conservation.
Unlike in Woodland, Davis did not have a 25-member advisory committee in place on September 6, and they did not do a rate study. I keep having to go back to Rochelle Swanson’s comment, “We didn’t do the things that you did.”
I understand where Woodland and the Daily Democrat are coming from, but they do not seem to understand where the Davis citizens are coming from and as a result, they can’t speak to us. There is a fundamental lack of trust of government palpable in the rate protests in Davis, and it starts with the last city council who did everything they could to game the system and ram this through with minimal discussion.
Mistakes were made on the way here, I think due more to inexperience on the part of the new council and new city staff rather than any sort of malice or malfeasance, but it is going to take time to rebuild the trust and work with the public on consensus.
As the Democrat wrote, “Woodland city leaders have some hard decisions to make. Notably, whether the city can afford to go it alone in paying for a new source of water? Even waiting for a year to put together a financing package will add $17 million to the overall cost.”
I can understand their frustration, but apparently they can’t understand ours. They see this as black and white.
They wrote, “Nonetheless, Woodland leaders are doing the right thing. We know some people here will protest the high water rates which will result, but it’s our opinion Woodlanders know the value of water — something Davis residents haven’t yet faced.”
Maybe what is really happening here is that the citizens of Davis are not willing to simply accept the representations of their leaders – leaders who in the past have misled them on critical issues and at critical times.
The Democrat concluded, “Water is a resource which is only going to be more valuable. In the future, Woodland can consider setting water rates for Davis. And if Davis residents are unhappy at the prospect of higher rates now, just wait.”
While that sounds like a pithy statement, the fact of the matter is that in June, the rate hikes were going to be 28%, people protested, and suddenly and very quickly those rates came down, way down. Now they are claiming them to be 14%, and that appears to be a phony number. Why is it that the Democrat, in light of this history, expects Davis residents to simply accept official representations about the rates and the necessity of the project without further scrutiny?
Davis has a strong democratic tradition and there is a huge confidence gap in city leadership. Just look at the polling numbers on city council and the high negatives.
The Sacramento Bee made similar assumptions and mistakes about Davis when they wrote yesterday, “Is Davis set to scuttle Woodland water deal?”
The Bee wrote, “The city of Davis faces a moment of reckoning: Does it want to back away from a water deal with Woodland that is vital to the future of both cities?”
They added, “Even more importantly, do Davis residents and leaders realize the potential costs of delaying or derailing this water deal? Are they aware that a cleaner source of water is essential for reducing salts in the city’s wastewater? Are they aware that, without cleaner water, the city could face onerous state penalties and costs for building new wastewater treatment facilities?”
While the Sacramento Bee, with a professional editorial board, actually did their homework, their representations are still off the mark.
They wrote, “Three months ago, Davis seemed on board as the City Council approved a 14-percent increase in water rates to pay for its share.”
Really? What I saw three months ago was a polarized community, a council that voted 4-1 to go forward, but in a lot of ways that 4-1 was soft and really closer to a 2-2-1 split.
They added, “Since then, opponents have attacked the proposed plan and rate hikes for various reasons – some legitimate, some less so. Many complain the water rate increase is overly complicated, with residents unclear about what type of rate tier may apply to them.”
“That may be a concern, but one that could easily be fixed with further education, outreach and rate adjustments,” they write.
That is fine, let us see the rate adjustments, because that is a good deal of the problem and that is the explicit reason why Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk paused this thing.
Unlike the Daily Democrat, the Sacramento Bee at least understands that what is driving this is the initiative and referendum.
“They have shown they can easily collect signatures for an initiative that would kill the project, regardless of consequences. Faced with this prospect, the City Council on Wednesday was forced to backtrack, repeal the water rate increase approved three months ago and initiate a new rate study,” they correctly wrote.
The Council was “forced” to backtrack. They didn’t bow to expediency, as the Democrat suggested.
The Bee continued, “But what if that June vote is delayed or Davis voters decide to reject the rate increase, and thus, the project itself?”
My response would be, then the leadership in Davis screwed up because the only way this loses is if they fail to fix the process, fail to explain its necessity, and fail to fix the rates.
Democracy is rarely clean, but it is the best system in the world. And the reason for that is that when it works correctly, it ensures accountability in our leadership – even when that is inconvenient. We want citizenry that is not going to simply stand by and accept the decisions its leaders make. If more communities were like this, we would be in a better place.
If this process works correctly, we will have a better and much stronger water project, one that the community is behind and has full confidence in its leaders to deliver. But that ball is in the court of council and city staff, which is how it should be.
The Bee and Democrat are looking at outcomes. Democracy is not an outcome, it is a process. We didn’t get the process right in Davis the first time, and we are trying to fix it.
The Bee then examined the comments by Ken Landau, deputy executive director of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
We have covered these comments extensively, and have argued that there is quite a bit of nuance in there.
Now, what I find interesting about the comments made by Mr. Landau is this: “If you come up with another project that takes a year or longer, we might be fine with that. If you come up with another project that takes five or 10 years longer, I doubt it.”
That gibes with Rochelle Swanson’s statement that we have time, time to get this right.
The Bee actually got it wrong in the next statement, “It doesn’t get much clearer than that for Davis voters and city leaders. Either they launch a project in the next year or so, or risk being ‘shut down’ by state and federal environmental laws.”
That is not what Mr. Landau actually said. What he actually said is that Davis probably can get away with a slight delay in the project if they show that they have a project that will address the problems.
And yes, it may cost a bit more due to the delay, or it may not. Scare tactics are not going to help this situation. Coming up with a viable project that makes sense and people can understand will help.
The Bee concluded, “With proper outreach, we suspect the citizens of Davis will ultimately do the right thing. If they don’t, the consequences for the city’s finances [and] environmental reputation will not be pretty.”
Outreach and communication has been a problem, but it is not the sum total of the problems. We need a real rate study, we need to adjust the tiers, and we need to make this project transparent and make it clear to the public what they will pay. If the city does this, I think the community will back them. If it doesn’t, then Davis will risk fines and other problems.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The Davis City Council did not have any choice. They can’t ignore the signature petition to put the matter up for referendum. That’s not political expediency, that is reality.”[/i]
I disagree David. They did have a choice. Harriet Steiner’s opinion gave them a “legality option” when dealing with the Referendum. However, as I stated in public comment on Tuesday, since there is actually no case law that pertains to Harriet’s decision, the chances of an expensive and protracted court battle were high.
Even more important would have been the impact on the reelection likelihood for each Council member if they had chosen to declare the Referendum illegal. All other issues in a reelection would have taken backstage, and that is simply impractical.
So, bottom-line, they had choices, just not practical alternatives.
Fair enough Matt
Having attended the first meeting of the Water Advisory Committee on Thursday night, it was interesting to see how many citizen “observers” were in the audience . . . [u]three[/u].
Outreach and transparency only work if the citizens do their part.
BTW, the meeting was very impressive. Eight of the ten appointees were present, and one of the two absentees has declined to participate, so participation was high. I was particularly impressed with Michael Bartolic, Alf Brandt, and Frank Loge, none of whom I have had any opportunity to see in pre-water “action” here in Davis. Bill Kopper, Mark Siegler and Helen Thomson all brought their wealth of Davis knowledge and perspective to the discussions. I hadn’t heard any of those three talk about water before Thursday, and all three were solidly engaged. I had already participated with both Elaine Roberts-Musser and Steve Boschken on the pre-September ad-hoc Water Advisory Committee, so their engagement with water and water rate issues was no surprise.
Most importantly I sensed no agendas throughout the whole two hours . . . only a firm commitment, collectively and individually, to trying to do the right thing for the citizens of Davis.
I look forward to observing their future meetings. This was a great first step.
I also hope we have a whole lot more than three citizens who take the time to observe and learn.
Mattt… you misspoke… [quote]there is actually no case law that pertains to Harriet’s [s]decision[/s][b][i]opinion[/i][/b]…/quote]
Absolutely right hpierce. Thank you for that correction.
I do have to ask the vanguard what if the shoe was on the other foot and woodland decided to screw davis over – arguing it could do so because of a referendum by woodland voters – would the vanguard not raise a stink?
“Davis will risk fines and other problems.” Yes if it does not get its collective butt in gear and move forward with a project.
First of all, Davis did not decide to screw over Woodland, whether that is the effect both remains to be seen and is in the eye of the beholder.
Second, whether or not a stink would be raised is difficult to say, but whether it would be or not does not go to the point of whether or not a stink is legitimate.
Third, there is no doubt that there are risks in pausing the project, but there are also risks going forward both without public approval and with admitted problems.
[quote]There is a fundamental lack of trust of government palpable in the rate protests in Davis, and it starts with the last city council who did everything they could to game the system and ram this through with minimal discussion.
Mistakes were made on the way here, I think due more to inexperience on the part of the new council and new city staff rather than any sort of malice or malfeasance, but it is going to take time to rebuild the trust and work with the public on consensus.[/quote]
I think this is a fair statement…
Vanguard: “Davis did not decide to screw over Woodland”
wrong.
“Second, whether or not a stink would be raised is difficult to say, but whether it would be or not does not go to the point of whether or not a stink is legitimate.”
that did not answer the question.
[quote]While that sounds like a pithy statement, the fact of the matter is that in June, the rate hikes were going to be 28%, people protested, and suddenly and very quickly those rates came down, way down. Now they are claiming them to be 14%, and that appears to be a phony number. [/quote]
Why is this a phony number? First of all it casts unnecessary aspersions on the informal advisory committee that tried to work with the Dept of Public Works to get the rates down, which is what everyone said they wanted – a reduction in the rate increases. Secondly, there was a very specific rationale given for why the rate increases were reduced: 1) some components of the surface water project would be put off (delay is also what the citizens had asked for); 2) assumed borrowing interest rate of 5.5% instead of 6.5%; 3) some of the funding already collected for the wastewater treatment plant would be used for the surface water project. So explain to me how this rate increase reduction is “phony”?
Octane: I see no evidence that there was a decision made to screw over Woodland. I fully acknowledge that it might be an effect of the decisions, but not a motivation.
Elaine: It’s a phony number because it is not a 14% rate hike. It’s a much higher rate hike. The 14% number is not derived on the rate end of the calculation, it is derived on the cost end.
[quote]And yes, it may cost a bit more due to the delay, or it may not. Scare tactics are not going to help this situation. Coming up with a viable project that makes sense and people can understand will help.[/quote]
What evidence do you have that delaying this project will not be more expensive?
[quote]Now, what I find interesting about the comments made by Mr. Landau is this: “If you come up with another project that takes a year or longer, we might be fine with that. If you come up with another project that takes five or 10 years longer, I doubt it.”[/quote]
Bottom line is that Woodland is currently being subjected to fines; whereas Davis is not yet being fined. That very well may be the reason for the differing views between the two cities. Imposed fines are a definite “motivating” factor…
…The fact of the matter is that the voters of Davis felt short-changed on the process
Some of the voters may have felt that way. Others would have favored moving forward. So why the persistent portrayal of this campaign that barely got enough referendum signatures, and relied on paid signature gathers for over a third of those, as some democratic uprising. Some of us would still like to know who put up the money for the signature gatherers and why.
I would like to propose an investigation of that aspect of this process as a topic for you David.
[quote]I also hope we have a whole lot more than three citizens who take the time to observe and learn.[/quote]
Ditto!
“What evidence do you have that delaying this project will not be more expensive?”
I stated that it may or may be more expensive, I did not state that it will be more expensive.
“So why the persistent portrayal of this campaign that barely got enough referendum signatures, and relied on paid signature gathers for over a third of those, as some democratic uprising.”
First of all, the hurdle in one-month time was extremely high. We had 3800 signatures, that’s a good chunk of people and 4800 Prop 218 protests, that’s certainly sizable. If at the end of the day, people vote for the project, I can live with it.
“Some of us would still like to know who put up the money for the signature gatherers and why. “
I’m pretty sure the answer to that is Ernie Head and Michael Harrington and that the reason is either opposition to the water rates or the project. I don’t think there is a deep and sinister conspiracy at work here.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Some of us would still like to know who put up the money for the signature gatherers and why. I would like to propose an investigation of that aspect of this process as a topic for you David.”[/i]
Another good article topic David would be looking into the additional $700,000 that Ernie Head “extracted” from the City over and above the agreed to sale price of for the Well property he sold to the City in approximately 2005. While it appears that Ernie did nothing illegal, it does appear that what he did was usurious.
vanguard: I fully acknowledge that it might be an effect of the decisions, but not a motivation.
who gives a damn? the consequences to woodland are all the same.
The Daily Democrat is off the mark, the Sac Bee is off the mark–the Vanguard is on the mark. There was a letter to the editor in yesterday’s Enterprise. Some diseased trees had been cut down, and the writer was outraged that he had not been permitted to vote on this act of arborcide. What’s next, a vote on spraying weeds with Roundup? I know we are proud of our college-town wackiness, but there is a limit where it becomes self destructive. I think we’re there.
91 Octane said . . .
[i]”who gives a damn? the consequences to woodland are all the same.”[/i]
91, while I understand your perspective, it is also one of the consequences of living in a participative democracy. What has happened should not have surprised a single politician in Woodland or Yolo County.
“I also hope we have a whole lot more than three citizens who take the time to observe and learn.”
Will the meeting dates and times be on the Davis city web page?
While I do not recognize many of the names, it does look like a replay of the citizen advisory commission on ranking sites for development, namely each Councilperson selected 2 members who most supported their perspective on the issue with the 4-1 Council vote being reflected in the make-up of this body.
[quote]ERM: “What evidence do you have that delaying this project will not be more expensive?”
DMG: I stated that it may or may be more expensive, I did not state that it will be more expensive.[/quote]
In other words absolutely no evidence to back up your contention it may not be more expensive…
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Will the meeting dates and times be on the Davis city web page?
While I do not recognize many of the names, it does look like a replay of the citizen advisory commission on ranking sites for development, namely each Councilperson selected 2 members who most supported their perspective on the issue with the 4-1 Council vote being reflected in the make-up of this body.”
[/i]
I’m sure they will. Go to [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/agenda.cfm?c=40[/url] They will be meeting every 2 weeks on Thursday nights for 2 hours from 6:30 to 8:30 at the Davis Senior Center.
I’m not sure I agree with your assessment of the WAC selectees when compared to the HESC. Souza’s selection of Michael Bartolic was definitely “against the grain.” Wolk’s appointee Alf Brandt showed me that he has a very open mind about the issues and possible solutions. What Krovoza’s appointee Frank Loge had to say was very similar to what Bartolic had to say. it was a very “balanced” panel IMHO.
and Helen Thomson
One the reasons I so much like living in my little city… we do want we think is right without much care or consideration for what others think about us. It truly is admirable… assuming we really don’t care what others think about us.
David
“I’m pretty sure the answer to that is Ernie Head and Michael Harrington and that the reason is either opposition to the water rates or the project. I don’t think there is a deep and sinister conspiracy at work here.
At the risk of sounding too harsh, I don’t think that your response represents much investigation since both Ernie Head and Michael Harrington have said as much publicly. While I agree this probably does not represent a “deep and sinister conspiracy” such an effort certainly is backed by some specific objection or motive. I think, since their actions have resulted in a fair amount of turmoil within the community, it is fair to enquire about the basis of their objections, and what they see as alternative solutions, neither of which they have chosen to address.
I don’t understand why some of you are still making an issue about whether or not some of the signature gatherers were paid. What difference can that possibly make? It’s not like they signed the petition. All they did was give all the citizens who wanted to sign a chance to do just that. If you have a problem with paid signature gatherers, then I strongly suggest that next time there’s a controversial petition, you get your collective butts out there to volunteer to get those signatures.
JayTee
I have no problem with paid signature gatherers per se. I have three objections to the way in which this was conducted and portrayed.
1) At least some of them were very assertive in their approach and provided a very uninformed and biased view of events as I posted previously including at least one who was unaware that this issue has been under consideration for at least a decade. I believe that signature gatherers like every one else involved in civic activity should be informed and acting in good faith.
2) This has been repeatedly put forward as “the will of the voters or of the people” as though there are not other members of the community who would favor expeditious action on this issue.
3) I very much dislike the threatening, accusatory, and vitriolic posts by Mr. Harrington , who has been a font of negative charges against others, but has chosen to not share any positive proposals, suggestions or ideas of his own or from his group. If one is willing to pay for signatures, I see it as responsible civically to state where the money is coming from and the interests of those providing it.
I suspect, but do not know that most who have pointed out their concerns about the use of paid signature gatherers were not in favor of the referendum, and therefore could not be expected to “get their collective butts out there to volunteer” to get those signatures for an issue they do not favor.
There were major errors in the Sac Bee editorial. I sure hope that the discussion remains fact-based both locally and regionally.
I disagree with David Greenwald’s new position that the problem is one of process. I believe the problem is one of cost, and how to handle an extraordinary $300 million of water-related capital improvements and acquisitions.
–City staff involved in this water plan explained to me a few months ago
that the only problem is that Davis wastewater is too salty. Staff claimed the high salt content of our wastewater is simply due to use of water softeners by many residents. The most environmental solution is to quit using water softeners and not build this huge project.
–More consideration should be given to PUBLIC ownership of this water
project. Profits to a private corporation serve to drive up water rates.
— And do we want a private corporation controlling our most vital necessity?
(think PG&E!)
@David Greenwald: I don’t think the issue is one of process; I think it is one of cost. $300 million in new water-related infrastructure and acquisitions represents an unusually large debt burden for a city of 65,000.
For any folks out there at the Sac Bee who might be tuning in for the first time, the major problem that Davis faces is that we are forced to build a new $100 million wastewater treatment plant at the same time that we are proceeding with a new surface water plant. Half of all Davis households have incomes of under $60,000, and 40% of students are on Pell grants. Our restaurants are the heart and soul of our downtown, and restaurants are huge water and wastewater users. Davis’ combined water/wastewater rates will be far, far higher than those in the rest of the region if we are paying for both a new wastewater treatment plant and a new surface water project simultaneously. $300 million of total utility-related capital improvement/acquisition costs for a town of 65,000 represents a per household debt load that has resulted in serious economic consequences for other cities nationally.
I think that almost everyone in Davis would prefer to have dual sources of water to address long-term sustainability and subsidence control. The question before us is whether it is fiscally feasible to undertake two mega-projects at once, with a combined $300 million cost, without lasting unacceptable levels of negative ramifications. It is an issue of cost/benefit analysis.
The Sacramento Bee editorial was rife with major errors, which I will list when I have time. I would like the discussion to stay fact-based both locally and regionally, and the Sac Bee editorial was not fact-based, probably because much of the information that they must have relied on is somewhat dated and has not taken into account additional information that staff has been accumulating.
There are good arguments for going ahead with the project now and good arguments for trying to phase in our two major infrastructure projects.
But the Sac Bee article, like the CWJPA, has overstated Davis’ regulatory obstacles. Actually, Davis well water will be in pretty good shape from an effluent perspective once our already planned groundwater improvements are in place. Selenium is not likely to be a problem, and we can probably deal with salinity via water softener regulations. Of course, as a city we will do what it takes to comply, but we have never seriously analyzed our actual alternative options from a regulatory perspective.
I am happy to let the citizens vote on the project when the time comes, and I hope I am wrong about the fiscal feasibility issues. There are a lot of affluent citizens of Davis who can afford the costs associated with $300 million worth of new water-related capital improvements and who would like to get the surface water project behind us, and I am happy to live with the results of a vote of the people. I think that a November vote makes more sense for three reasons:
First: As Dan Wolk said, our city council election should be focused on the budget, which is our biggest problem right now.
Second: Closely related to the reason #1 is the fact that we should be focusing on our parks tax renewal. It would be a mistake to run a possibly contentious water initiative on the same ballot of our parks tax.
Our budget is in huge trouble even without the parks tax renewal, and the school district’s recent polling shows that we have our work cut out for us. The reason we put the parks tax renewal on the June ballots is that the council candidates can carry the campaign forward. We also need to save November as a fall-back date if the tax runs into trouble.
Third: The citizens’ advisory committee needs the time to delve into the issues, and they deserve time to discuss and deliberate free from the charged atmosphere of an initiative campaign.
Sue: [i]Actually, Davis well water will be in pretty good shape from an effluent perspective once our already planned groundwater improvements are in place. Selenium is not likely to be a problem, and we can probably deal with salinity via water softener regulations.[/i]
Since you continue to insist on saying this, I am going to continue to insist on replying each time that you do.
No, “[i]selenium is not likely to be a problem” [/i]is not an accurate statement. I have now, three times, referred you to the summary of our well situation that I have posted elsewhere. We would have to substantially reduce our pumping capacity and probably still wouldn’t “solve” our selenium problem.
The notion that we can “deal with salinity via water softener regulations” is not supported by anything I have seen in writing anywhere. Please cite your source on this.
I repeat: you are proposing that the city of Davis and UCD quadruple pumping from the deep aquifer for 20 to 25 years.
Here is the Davis well situation: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=41&Itemid=192[/url]
Nobody in the city has told you we can solve our selenium problem with deep well water for 20 to 25 years. Nobody in the state has told you we can solve our effluent problems by using groundwater for 20 to 25 years.
Nobody anywhere that I am aware of has told anyone that we can solve our salinity problem by banning water softeners.
Our regulatory obstacles are provable simply by looking at what is happening in Woodland and Davis. I believe your assertions here are either incorrect or overly optimistic.
Sue
Since you seem to be the only individual who is not in favor of advancing the surface water project expeditiously
who is also addressing these issues on an informational basis, would it be possible for you to address directly
the links that Don Shor has posted, which to someone who has not steeped herself in this information for years,
look pretty convincing. If it is just your impression from conversations you have had and research you have done, that is fine. Please just say so. But if you have other numbers or factual information, could you either repost it or direct me to the posts in which you addressed it directly ?
Thanks for your time. I know it must be frustrating sometimes to deal with those of us who are now scurrying to do our homework.
E Roberts Musser said,” What evidence do you have that delaying this project will not be more expensive?”
Here’s a thought: The way the water import project is currently proposed, we are looking at three bidders and we have announced that it is going to cost $325 million. Two of those bidders are non-starters. Any guesses what the bid from sole bidder CH2MHill is going to look like?
The $325 million figure seems to have been generated several years before the economy tanked and put most contractors in the country in the hurt locker. Every single public works project, that I am aware of, that has gone out to bid from the City since 2008 has come back way lower than anticipated. It’s a buyers market folks, and it’s going to stay that way for a long time.
We definitely need to back up and completely rework the process for hiring a contractor. I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of them out there, who posses the wherewithal to build this project, who would love to bid against cH2MHill. Woodland could very well end up being the beneficiary of Davis’ go slow approach to this huge public works project.
[quote]Since you continue to insist on saying this, I am going to continue to insist on replying each time that you do.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don Shor and medwoman: Staff has been working on the figures. Surprisingly, our staff has never been asked to do any calculations on the actual numbers once our new deep aquifer wells, projected conservation stats and replumbing of shallow aquifers for irrigation are completed. We have some excellent staff members who are analyzing the numbers now, so we will have to wait a week or two. Anyone who was listening to the staff-council Q&A last week heard a tentative agreement with the basic direction of my comments on the selenium issue.
I have put the numbers in front of you, Sue.
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=41&Itemid=192[/url]
12 wells that are high selenium. 3 more with significant problems.
The conundrum is this:
If we continue to pump from the intermediate aquifers, subsidence will continue. So if you are assuming we are going to achieve the selenium level by diluting our existing intermediate well water with deep water, you are planning for subsidence to continue. Are you advocating that we continue current levels of pumping from the intermediate wells?
If we go primarily to the deep aquifer, we reduce our pumping capacity to a level that isn’t sufficient to supply our current water use. Are you advocating that we get most of our water from the deep wells?
Are you counting on 20% conservation? In order to achieve significant conservation, rates have to go up quite a bit or mandatory conservation has to be mandated. 20% conservation is predicated on water rates going up about the amount that was just rescinded. Are you advocating mandatory conservation?
And all of that is just about selenium. As Alan noted in his September post, hexvalent chromium is the next issue in our groundwater, and the deep wells don’t solve that problem.
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4664:a-silver-lining-in-a-cloud-possibly-looming-over-the-woodland-davis-clean-water-agency-water-project&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79&cpage=30[/url]
And of course there are other constituents in deep aquifer water that have to be addressed (arsenic, etc.). If your plan is to dilute those by using intermediate aquifer water, then you are continuing subsidence. Are you advocating that?
[b]There is no problem solved by one groundwater source that doesn’t beget another one.[/b]
Salinity, selenium, subsidence, other constituents.
The problem is, you never address the facts when they are put in front of you. You just keep pointing us to staff or personal communications you’ve had with people in various agencies.
I have given you the numbers. I have read the reports. Your numbers don’t add up.
I see a very real risk that your deep-aquifer proposal would lead to further regulatory problems down the road, any blended-water proposal (if that is what you are now advocating) would likely require a series of increasingly unlikely variances, and your policies would create a city water shortage within five to ten years.
All of these problems are solved by the surface water project. All of them.
@Don Shor: I am just reporting out results. Our water usage has been going down dramatically in recent years even without conservation rates. Staff is predicting another 20% yearly conservation, most of it in the summer when our selenium levels currently edge above the limit.
Regarding the wells that are high in selenium: I have mentioned before that most of our water is coming from the deep wells with undetectable amounts of selenium.
No, most of our water is not coming from the deep wells. Please review the chart I have now linked for you twice.
Staff is not predicting “20% yearly conservation.” I assume this is some kind of a misprint on your part.
I am going to ask some simple questions again.
Are you advocating that we continue current levels of pumping from the intermediate wells?
Are you advocating that we get most of our water from the deep wells?
Are you advocating that we blend the intermediate and deep aquifer water?
The numbers again:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/wellspreadsheet.jpg[/img]
Sorry Don. I meant that staff is predicting that water usage will decrease by 20%, and most of that decrease will be in the summer.
Don, I know that you don’t approve of pumping groundwater. I just don’t share this aversion.
“Will decrease by 20%” in a year? ten years? On what basis are they predicting that? The rate increase that the council just rescinded assumed a 20% decrease[i] because of the rate increase. [/i]
Pumping intermediate aquifer water as we are doing now will continue subsidence at 1/2 to 1 inch per year.
Ceasing intermediate aquifer pumping and going entirely to deep aquifer pumping will reduce our capacity by over 50%.
You should share an aversion to reducing our available water by more than 50%.
You should share an aversion to continued subsidence at 1/2 to one inch per year.
Those are your choices.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Anyone who was listening to the staff-council Q&A last week heard a tentative agreement with the basic direction of my comments on the selenium issue.”[/i]
No Sue, what we heard was you having tentative agreement with yourself.
Go back and look at the video tape. Dianna made no such tentative agreement. She said she had gathered the theoretical well pumping potential numbers in isolation, but had yet to put them into the system model.
The key there is that if there is added pumping capacity at individual wells, but 1) that production isn’t in physical portions of the system where the demand is, then the system has to have the piping robustness to get the added well production to the usage site, and 2) if the pumping capacity has no matching usage during the non-peak hours of the day, then the system has to have the piping robustness to get the added well production into a storage vessel. Until she puts the potential added pumping capacity into the system model Dianna does not know if the potential added pumping capacity is indeed real added production.
There are two further points you need to remember. When they are pumping, the deep water aquifer wells are pumping at their EIR-constrained maximum pumping capacity. Therefore they can not by legal agreement pump any more water during the same amount of time than they currently do. The only way to get more production out of the deep water aquifer wells is to have them pump during more hours of the day. It is not clear what the added wear and tear factor on each pump is going to be if it is required to pump more hours of the day. If the system starts to have increased deep aquifer well pump breakdowns as a result of increased pump usage (overuse?) then the “delicate balance” you are striving to achieve will come crashing down, with skyrocketing Selenium values during the time that the deep water aquifer pump is being repaired and its production is being replaced by high selenium output intermediate aquifer wells.
With all the above said, I strongly believe that the spreadsheet and modeling work you are having Dianna do is a very good idea. It does demonstrate that we more than likely can roll the dice on the likelihood of well pump breakdowns in the short run (1-3 years) and thereby reduce the short term prospect of SWRCB selenium fines, but trying to run flat-out like that for anything long term is more than likely playing Russian Roulette.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Sorry Don. I meant that staff is predicting that water usage will decrease by 20%, and most of that decrease will be in the summer.
Don, I know that you don’t approve of pumping groundwater. I just don’t share this aversion.”[/i]
Sue, do you think that the 5-year cumulative 20% conservation will happen if water rates stay flat as you propose?
It is clear that you don’t share Don’s aversion. Do you share his aversion to Russian Roulette?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Don Shor: I am just reporting out results. Our water usage has been going down dramatically in recent years even without conservation rates. Staff is predicting another 20% yearly conservation, most of it in the summer when our selenium levels currently edge above the limit.”[/i]
No. No. No. Staff is not predicting another yearly 20% conservation. If that were true then the amount of water we would be using at the end of Year 5 in the Ordinance you voted on in September would be 33% of current consumption. You know full well that that is absolutely not the case. How can you argue that with a straight face?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”All of these problems are solved by the surface water project. All of them.”[/i]
Don, in fairness to Sue, all these problems would also be solved by well head treatment of our groundwater supplies.
You can see the tip of that strategy in action underneath the Dave Pelz Bicycle Overpass at Chiles Road. The new deep aquifer well there is being fitted for wellhead treatment of one constituent, Manganese. As long as there is available real estate footprint available, each well in the Davis system could be fitted with added treatment capacity to remove selenium and other minerals. That would mean the water going into Davis houses wouldn’t require water softening any more, thus solving our salinity issues.
The operational challenge of a well head treatment approach is the daily disposal of the resultant brine slurry.
@Don Shor and Matt Williams …
Come on guys. I said that staff projected a 20% decrease in water use. If we were serious about exploring a scenario for postponing the completion of the project while we pay off all or part of our new waste water plant, we could institute some form of tiered conservation rates deemed fair by the public that would produce the same effect. Council has been talking about doing that for years, well before the magnitude of the projected rate increases became apparent.
The “tiered conservation rates’ would have to be comparable to the rates the council just rescinded!!!
Arrrrggghhh!!
You do understand that the 20% conservation that was the basis of the “14% rate increase” that just caused so much hue and cry — which was actually a more than 20% increase, as we all know thanks to Bob Dunning and David Greenwald and others — was based on the effect of the higher rates.
Sue: you are saying that in order to achieve the conservation necessary to (maybe) achieve your deep-aquifer-blended-with-intermediate-aquifer-reduction-of-selenium, the city would have to raise rates.
I am telling you and all the other readers that the rates necessary to achieve that conservation level would be the same rates they just got so upset about.
If you have any evidence that lower rates would achieve the 20% conservation, please provide it. I have seen the research studies about what level of conservation can be predicted from water rate increases.
So the public would pay higher rates and NOT get surface water. Fourfold increase in pumping from deep aquifer, ongoing threats of further regulatory action, continued use of intermediate aquifer (with continued subsidence), no surface water, and higher rates.
And eventually we’d have to pay for the surface water anyway.
This does not sound like a good bargain any way you look at it.
Please keep pursuing the idea of the variance for the wastewater project. Your deep aquifer proposal gets worse and worse with continued scrutiny.
To repeat: the deep aquifer pumping was never intended as a longterm source of water for the city of Davis.
By the way, the capacity vs yield issue Matt is discussing above is built into the spreadsheet I have posted on this thread. I am assuming 60% yield from the new deep wells because that is what the current deep well is yielding. All the other wells, with one exception, yield much lower than that. You can’t run wells 24/7/365. That just isn’t done. You can’t figure 100% capacity.
Just to clarify: are you seriously advocating that we increase rates just for the purpose of achieving water conservation?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Come on guys. I said that staff projected a 20% decrease in water use. [b]If we were serious about exploring a scenario for postponing the completion of the project while we pay off all or part of our new waste water plant[/b], we could institute some form of tiered conservation rates deemed fair by the public that would produce the same effect. Council has been talking about doing that for years, well before the magnitude of the projected rate increases became apparent.”[/i]
You are talking to yourself.
Of course we are serious about all possible scenarios, but the scenario of postponing the water solution and going forward immediately with the wastewater plant upgrade is only one scenario. Going forward immediately with a permanent solution to our source water (either through well head treatment or a new water source) and working with the RWRCB to delay the wastewater upgrade to meet the tertiary filtration requirement is a scenario that you have not consistently or seriously discussed. It is a far superior solution to my way of thinking, and my discussions with the RWRCB indicate that they would give it serious consideration if we presented them with a holistic water/wastewater plan.
So I say to you, “Come on Sue! Where is the initiative you showed a couple weeks ago on that scenario and got accused here in the Vanguard of flip-flopping. I noted then that you weren’t flip-flopping and I reitterate that same sentiment now. If you are serious about saving the ratepayers money by minimizing the overlap of the capital expense of these two projects, you will explore all the viable scenarios.
Sue Greenwald . . .
[i]”We could institute some form of tiered conservation rates deemed fair by the public that would produce the same effect. [b]Council has been talking about doing that for years,[/b] well before the magnitude of the projected rate increases became apparent.”[/i]
Sue, Council talking about doing things is inexpensive. Where is the beef from all that talk?
[quote]More consideration should be given to PUBLIC ownership of this water
project. Profits to a private corporation serve to drive up water rates. [/quote]
The plan is for the JPA to PUBLICLY OWN the project they build. It will be a private company that OPERATES the project initially…
To anyone who opposes going forward with the surface water project within the next few years:
Are you advocating that we continue current levels of pumping from the intermediate wells?
Are you advocating that we get most of our water from the deep wells?
Are you advocating that we blend the intermediate and deep aquifer water?
Are you advocating that we increase rates specifically for the purpose of achieving water conservation?
[quote]Going forward immediately with a permanent solution to our source water (either through well head treatment or a new water source) and working with the RWRCB to delay the wastewater upgrade to meet the tertiary filtration requirement is a scenario that you have not consistently or seriously discussed. It is a far superior solution to my way of thinking, and my discussions with the RWRCB indicate that they would give it serious consideration if we presented them with a holistic water/wastewater plan.–Matt Williams[/quote]I’m sorry Matt, I should have kept you posted. After talking with a staff member the regional board, I found out that it would be technically possible for the board to give us an extension on the ammonia nitrogen limits. But after talking at length with a senior staff member at the state board, I came to the conclusion that we could never got such an extension, and that while salinity standards might be loosened, the ammonia nitrogen limits would more likely be even tighter in the future.
[quote]The “tiered conservation rates’ would have to be comparable to the rates the council just rescinded!!!–Don Shor[/quote]I don’t see that, Don. Under the surface water plan, everyone conserves and everyone has extremely high costs. Under the tiered conservation rate plan, those who conserve have moderate costs and those who use more water than necessary have high costs. The formula could be adjusted to account for per capita personal use. This system would give low and moderate income people the option of conserving their twenty percent and moderate costs.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I’m sorry Matt, I should have kept you posted. After talking with a staff member the regional board, I found out that it would be technically possible for the board to give us an extension on the ammonia nitrogen limits. But after talking at length with a senior staff member at the state board, I came to the conclusion that we could never got such an extension, and that while salinity standards might be loosened, the ammonia nitrogen limits would more likely be even tighter in the future.” [/i]
So, netting that down to its essence, you are willing to give up on that line of action without even trying it. Is that correct?