by John Munn
The Yolo County Taxpayers Association commends the Davis City Council for recognizing the need for a pause in the rush toward higher water rates. Whether we bring in surface water or not, the primary concern of the Taxpayers Association is affordability, and we hope that the design and cost of facilities needed to meet water quality and quantity needs of both Davis and Woodland can now be re-evaluated based what we can afford.
Use of surface water with much lower concentration of dissolved minerals, including selenium, could address the problems of both cities. Surface water is now available to Davis and Woodland based on rights to Sacramento River water that were recently granted by the State Water Resources Control Board following a multi-year approval process (for 47,000 acre feet) and that are being purchased from the Conaway Ranch (for 10,000 af). The larger, state approved water allocation is junior to older rights, which would preclude taking water during dry periods when more senior rights holders are using all the available river supply, while the Conaway Ranch water right is senior to most other river water users. These rights are hard to obtain, would be very difficult to replace, and when managed together should provide year-round access to river water during all but the most severe droughts. However, getting river water to Davis and Woodland will be expensive.
The current cost estimate for the proposed surface water project, in 2011 dollars and including administrative costs, is $337 million. This project would withdraw water from the Sacramento River by improving and adding pumping capacity to a reclamation district intake located just upstream from the Interstate 5 bridge east of Woodland. Water would then be moved across the Yolo Bypass in two pipes passing 80 feet beneath Bypass levees to ensure levee stability and extending to a water treatment plant east of Woodland. After treatment, water would be transported in separate pipelines to Woodland and Davis, which have their own plans and costs for connection to and distribution through city water supply systems along with additional repair and maintenance costs.
The cost of a new water intake facility would be shared with the Reclamation District and further reduced by already approved federal grants. The rest of the system would be paid for by Davis and Woodland water rate payers to cover the costs of repaying construction bonds, purchasing the Conaway Ranch water rights, water treatment and delivery, and system maintenance.
Several elements of the current plan could use another look and/or more documentation. The use of two pipes from the water intake to the water treatment plant is proposed for 1) a continuing source of water should one of the pipes fail when repair work is delayed by flooding in the Bypass and 2) sufficient flow velocity to reduce sediment accumulation. However, conjunctive (combined) use of groundwater and surface water would allow wells to be used for emergency supply and decrease the amount of surface water required to meet city needs. Resulting reductions in required flow capacity could permit use of a single pipeline to reduce the cost of materials and excavation and cut the cost of boring under levees by nearly half, while still maintaining pipe flow velocities for sediment removal.
Another cost concern is the 80 foot depth requirement where pipelines pass under Bypass levees. There is no disagreement that levee integrity is critically important, but it does seem odd that such a great depth would be needed to protect against seepage through fine textured deposits in the Yolo Bypass area. This depth requirement adds cost and the method by which it was determined should be made available for technical review.
The treatment plant is the most costly part of the surface water system paid for by Woodland and Davis. The total cost of this facility increases with required capacity, which could be reduced by additional use of groundwater, as mentioned above. Treatment plant construction could also be phased to avoid paying interest on capacity that is not needed now or in the near future. Greater reliance on existing wells could also reduce the size and cost of the pipeline projects needed to transport water from the treatment plant to Davis and Woodland.
A network of new pipes is planned to move surface water into the existing Davis and Woodland water systems. If complete surface water integration is not needed on the supply side to meet water quality standards on the discharge side, it may be possible to achieve savings by reducing the number of connection points. This would, however, probably result in different concentrations of dissolved minerals in water delivered to different service areas (which already occurs because of differences in water quality from existing wells).
A separate cost concern is the proposed design/build/operate (DBO) bid process being used to select a company to construct the surface water project. Altogether, this is a huge project and the operations component extends years into the future. Few companies are large enough to undertake the combined design, construction, and operation of such a large project, which includes several million dollars just to develop the design part of the bid. And the availability of bidders is further reduced by the small number of firms providing required operating services. This has resulted in qualifying only three DBO bidders on the project, and it is possible that only two of these will submit a bid.
The DBO process makes the successful bidder responsible for cost increases from design oversights and future increases in operating costs. However, companies preparing bids are aware of these risks and account for them in their bid price, which means that risks will be paid for whether potential cost increases occur or not. Breaking the project into smaller parts (intake, Bypass pipeline, treatment plant, pipelines to cities, and such) would attract many, competing bids from local and non-local construction companies, which might lead to a lower combined cost. Operating the system could then be put out to bid or assumed by the cities depending on cost projections and other considerations.
With the numerous concerns noted here and elsewhere in mind, an objective review of project alternatives should be conducted to ensure that bias for the proposed project does not influence the manner in which alternatives were considered.
There is also a governance problem with having the huge cost of a surface water project, plus past and upcoming costs of wastewater treatment plant upgrades, being imposed without recourse on the people of Davis, Woodland, and throughout California by appointed members of State Water Quality Control Boards who cannot be held accountable by voters. Local ratepayers can express their concerns about this situation by contacting the Governor, who is responsible for making appointments to these Boards.
The Yolo County Taxpayers Association hopes that these, and any other, suggestions for minimizing local ratepayer costs will be evaluated before further consideration of water rate increases. We recognize that not everything suggested here may turn out to be a cost savings or part of an optimal solution. However, all means of keeping water affordable need to be considered. Residents of Davis and Woodland cannot afford to have their water rates tripled and doubled, respectively, as would be required to pay for the currently proposed surface water project. In addition, this project must address real needs and problems. It is not acceptable to be paying more for the appearance of political correctness or, as should have been learned in elementary school, because of what other people are doing.
John Munn is the President of the Yolo County Taxpayers Association
You don’t want to make government better. You just want to live free without paying for your fair share. You want to make people who come in from outside CA pay for your services through taxes on [u][i]their [/i][/u]houses and you don’t want to pay for the next generations children.
We need to start calling organizations like you represent for what they are: [u]greedy and entitled[/u].
Without commenting on its political correctness, the FACT is that on the Federal level, the direction is to delay/soften environmental mandated levels because of their negative economic impact on the economy recovering from the Great Recession. IMO, there is little doubt that California will be following this trend. Variances are the avenue open to Davis to postpone decisions until the political “dust settles” on how quickly water quality standards will need to be met.. In spite of the lip-service paid to the variance idea by our Council Majority,approval of the June vote will negatively impact the possibility of Davis receiving a variance approval.
Why don’t you want to comment on the [i]political correctness[/i], davisite? Do you believe Davis should continue sending high-salt, high-selenium, high-boron water to the Delta for the next 20 – 25 years? That’s what this is all about.
[quote]Without commenting on its political correctness, the FACT is that on the Federal level, the direction is to delay/soften environmental mandated levels because of their negative economic impact on the economy recovering from the Great Recession. IMO, there is little doubt that California will be following this trend. Variances are the avenue open to Davis to postpone decisions until the political “dust settles” on how quickly water quality standards will need to be met.. In spite of the lip-service paid to the variance idea by our Council Majority,approval of the June vote will negatively impact the possibility of Davis receiving a variance approval.[/quote]
Can you cite any source/link for your claim that at the federal level the direction is to soften/delay environmental mandated levels bc of the recesssion; or that CA will “follow this trend”?
[quote]The Yolo County Taxpayers Association hopes that these, and any other, suggestions for minimizing local ratepayer costs will be evaluated before further consideration of water rate increases. We recognize that not everything suggested here may turn out to be a cost savings or part of an optimal solution. However, all means of keeping water affordable need to be considered. Residents of Davis and Woodland cannot afford to have their water rates tripled and doubled, respectively, as would be required to pay for the currently proposed surface water project. In addition, this project must address real needs and problems. It is not acceptable to be paying more for the appearance of political correctness or, as should have been learned in elementary school, because of what other people are doing.[/quote]
I find this a curious statement. The author concedes he has no idea if any of the suggestions he made would represent a cost savings/optimal solution. Nor does the author address the issue of potential steep fines that could be in the offing that may not be “affordable” to the citizens of Woodland/Davis should they be imposed for noncompliance; while essentially implying some sort of undefined corruption/collusion at the SWRCB level. Instead of devolving into uncivil discourse, I would much prefer to keep the discussion fact based, professional, and nonaccusatory, unless there is specific knowledge of particular malfeasance. Making vague accusations that merely sling mud in the hopes that something will stick is not especially helpful.
Also it should be noted that the suggestions made by the author are from someone who is not a construction engineer AFAIK; nor is there any attempt to quantify the potential cost “savings” the author envisions from any of his ideas. The problem I see with this approach is that it congers up images of endless possibilities, with the inevitable “paralysis by analysis”. At some point the cities have to fish or cut bait on a decision, whatever it may be (surface water project; stay with the existing wells and/or drill more deep wells and hope/apply for a variance), as the looming deadline of new water quality standards kicks in come 2017. That is the reality, like it or not. The cities ignore these new mandates coming down the pike at their peril…
“Another cost concern is the 80 foot depth requirement where pipelines pass under Bypass levees. There is no disagreement that levee integrity is critically important, but it does seem odd that such a great depth would be needed to protect against seepage through fine textured deposits in the Yolo Bypass area. This depth requirement adds cost and the method by which it was determined should be made available for technical review.
Why does this particular depth seem “odd”. Are you aware of any evidence that a lesser depth would be as safe and less costly ? Has technical review of this issue already been done ?
I certainly agree that the most cost effective plan should be the one that is adopted. But it seems that this article contains a lost of speculation, and perhaps some dredging up of issues that have already been evaluated. Is this truly a search for more accurate information, or could it possibly be just a further delaying tactic ?
“But it seems that this article contains a lost of speculation, and perhaps some dredging up of issues that have already been evaluated”
On the other hand, perhaps it raises issues that haven’t been evaluated. I certainly have not seen a discussion or analysis on this – perhaps one exists and there is a good explanation for it. Perhaps one does not exist.
It would be good to know.
“This project would withdraw water from the Sacramento River by improving and adding pumping capacity to a reclamation district intake located just upstream from the Interstate 5 bridge east of Woodland. Water would then be moved across the Yolo Bypass in two pipes passing 80 feet beneath Bypass levees to ensure levee stability and extending to a water treatment plant east of Woodland.”
“The first rule of government spending, why buy one when you can get two for twice the cost?”
S.R.Haddon from Carl Sagan’s masterpiece “Contact.”
You make a good point here John, how much could be saved with only one pipe?
“Why don’t you want to comment on the political correctness, davisite? Do you believe Davis should continue sending high-salt, high-selenium, high-boron water to the Delta for the next 20 – 25 years? That’s what this is all about.
Political correctness has to do mostly with a “feel-good”, personal value position rather than an objective consideration of the issue in a much larger sense,i.e., what impact a decision will make on the overarching issue at hand(benefit) when weighed against a negative local impact(cost). It is generally accepted in the halls of the Ca legislature that the bond measure necessary to implement the Delta Plan will be rejected by the voters at this time.. putting the Delta Plan on hold to an undetermined future date.
“Why don’t you want to comment on the political correctness, davisite? Do you believe Davis should continue sending high-salt, high-selenium, high-boron water to the Delta for the next 20 – 25 years? That’s what this is all about.
Political correctness has to do mostly with a “feel-good”, personal value position rather than an objective consideration of the issue in a much larger sense,i.e., what impact a decision will make on the overarching issue at hand(benefit) when weighed against a negative local impact(cost). It is generally accepted in the halls of the Ca legislature that the bond measure necessary to implement the Delta Plan will be rejected by the voters at this time.. putting the Delta Plan on hold to an undetermined future date.
“Can you cite any source/link for your claim that at the federal level the direction is to soften/delay environmental mandated levels bc of the recesssion…”
As I indicated, this is an IMO position. My recollection is that the EPA has made some policy changes concerning required clean air standards. The FDA has recently altered its policy course from penalty-associated to voluntary industry oversight of antibiotic use in animals destined for human consumption. In both instances above, the negative economic impact on the industry along with increased costs to the consumer arguments in these dire economic times appears to have prevailed.
[quote]Why don’t you want to comment on the political correctness, davisite? Do you believe Davis should continue sending high-salt, high-selenium, high-boron water to the Delta for the next 20 – 25 years? That’s what this is all about.—[b]DON SHOR[/b][/quote]Don, I don’t think makes much sense to argue for this project on the basis of this environmental morality.
We are already in compliance or very close to compliance by merely pursuing our current groundwater plans. One would have to weigh the benefits of a town of 65,000 spending $350 million on a miniscule incremental decrease in salinity and selenium effluent which is swamped by the agricultural effluent anyway, with alternative environmental benefits that could be attained with the expenditure of $350 million.
If viewed in this rational manner, I don’t think the surface water project can be justified on these environmental grounds.
davisite: ” It is generally accepted in the halls of the Ca legislature that the bond measure necessary to implement the Delta Plan will be rejected by the voters at this time.. putting the Delta Plan on hold to an undetermined future date.”
That is completely and totally irrelevant to the water quality standards that have been developed over many, many years and adopted by state and federal regulators. The imposition of regulations by state and federal agencies are not affected by whether or not the state voters pass any bonds.
[b]A request for a variance is a request to continue polluting the delta. [/b]
The environmentalist credentials of any number of blog participants here are really coming into question over this issue.
Davis: the city that wants to ban plastic bags, but won’t pay to clean up its discharge.
Re: John Munn’s credentials (Elaine); from his campaign web site:
“I am a graduate of UC Davis with Bachelor of Science degrees in Soil and Water Science and in Engineering, along with a Master of Science degree in Soil Science. I am now working as a soil and water scientist with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.”
I should add that we will be in compliance or very, very close to compliance once our current groundwater plans are completed, assuming we regulate water softeners. Water softeners should not be needed, particularly after our already planned new deep wells are in place, since hardness of river water actually overlaps with hardness of surface water.
“Davis: the city that wants to ban plastic bags, but won’t pay to clean up its discharge.”
Don: This is not actually an accurate statement. We do not know if the “city” wants to ban plastic bags. We know that a group of citizens have put forward an initiative. We do not know if the citizens of this community support that initiative and we do not know if the council does because the matter has yet to come before them.
Sue:
“I should add that we will be in compliance or very, very close to compliance once our current groundwater plans are completed, assuming we regulate water softeners. “
This is a critical statement that underlies the debate, can you point us to the study and evidence that demonstrates and presents this information? Thanks.
David: No, she can’t. I have seen the same data she is referring to. We would have to run our deep wells 24/7/365. You don’t do that.
[quote]Sue: “I should add that we will be in compliance or very, very close to compliance once our current groundwater plans are completed, assuming we regulate water softeners. ”
This is a critical statement that underlies the debate, can you point us to the study and evidence that demonstrates and presents this information? Thanks. –[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]David, I have done so at length and repeatedly under your previous blogs.
When I have time, I will see if I can find them and repost them.
The bottom line, as I said, is that our selenium inflow is close to our selenium effluent limit anyway, and we have two new deep wells coming on line which will add further dilution in summer, as well as some repiping.
Our salinity inflow will similarly be at or near limits after our current groundwater plants are completed if we regulate water softeners.
Remember, we need to virtually eliminate water softeners to meet our salinity requirements even with surface water, and river water and groundwater will overlap in hardness, plus river water will be mixed with groundwater even if the surface water project is completed.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/watercapacityissues.jpg[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/watercapacityissues.pdf[/url]
“My recollection is that the EPA has made some policy changes concerning required clean air standards…”
Upon further reflection, the EPA article that I read was even more “on-point” with regard to Davis’ surface water issue.The article clearly suggested that while the EPA was holding firm to its emission standards for coal-fired plants producing electricity, they were “softening” the requirements for approval of a phasing-in program for plants in violation…. A “variance” by any other name…..? citing adverse economic impacts.
Sigh. The EPA stand on clean air standards is, again, irrelevant. I don’t even know why you keep implying that the regulatory environment for clean water is somehow going to change. More to the point, do you think it should?
@Sue:
[i]river water and groundwater will overlap in hardness
[/i]
Not really.
[img]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/watersupply/img/figurec.gif[/img]
[i]we need to virtually eliminate water softeners to meet our salinity requirements even with surface water,
[/i]
Not from anything I’ve seen. Surface water is so much lower in the regulated constituents that I find this doubtful.
I have looked at the same selenium information that you have. In order to achieve the standards we would have to abandon the intermediate wells almost entirely, then run our deep wells at a level that is not done. And we would have capacity problems if we did that.
[i]our selenium inflow is close to our selenium effluent limit anyway[/i]
You know our discharge permit is up in 2012, and that selenium limits are likely to continue to be lowered.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b] You have cut and pasted a chart from davismerchants.org that merely lists constituent levels in some wells. I looked up davismerchants.org, and it says it is a website owned by Don Shor.
The relevant figure is not the constituents in our wells, it is the constituent levels that reach the wastewater treatment plant.
Those are the figures that I am talking about and those are the figures that are at or close to compliance or that can reach compliance with water softener regulations.
Yes, Sue, it is a site where I am storing water-related data. Anyone is welcome to peruse the articles and files here: [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/[/url]
And anyone who wants something saved is welcome to send it to me at donshor@gmail.com, regardless of your position on this topic.
What I posted is a comparison of water quality in West Sacramento (surface water), and the Davis wells. The source of that chart is the city’s water feasibility study from 2002.
By the way, note the boron content. That is the next regulated constituent we’ll be dealing with, and the deep wells are higher in boron than the shallower wells. The data that I posted further above was from city staff, attempting to assess the boron impact on the city’s water of going to the deeper wells.
“More to the point, do you think it should?….”
Taking your cue, Don, what I think here is IRRELEVANT.
IMO, The position that State and Federal agencies are insulated from the political environment in which they are immersed belies the facts.
If the regulatory environment does change and allow for Davis to continue with its ground water supply now without suffering damaging economic penalties, this should be part of the discussion since incurring these penalties appears to be a major argument for the “forge ahead with the surface water project now” crowd.
Munn raises a new issue, Why two pipes? A very good question. Also, how much could be saved with just one pipe? We don’t need a second pipe for emergencies since we will have the old system to fall back on temporarily.
[quote]David: No, she can’t. I have seen the same data she is referring to. We would have to run our deep wells 24/7/365. You don’t do that.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Yes, Don, we might need up do two additional new wells to account for down time. That would come to $8 million, or less than one year of interest on the early completion of the surface water project.
[b]$8 million vs. $240 million[/b] (Davis share of surface water project cost, present value of Conaway water (we could temporarily resell our Conaway water), present value new O&M costs.
Thanks to John for taking the time to write something useful. Why not break the project down into components and bid them?
Also, I have yet to see a comprehensive study of the fiscal and technical sustainability of our current ground water well supply system. You have to have that, then compare against the surface water system, right?
Finally, I think that John and his friends should push to hold off on further work on the surface plant system until the well system is studied, and the new sewer plant upgradesa are paid off.
We simply cannot afford doing two major projects at once.
Most people, myself included, find it much easier to understand the water works question in graphical form:
[img]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kw2sfmgBVz1qaggowo1_500.jpg[/img]
[quote]our selenium inflow is close to our selenium effluent limit anyway
You know our discharge permit is up in 2012, and that selenium limits are likely to continue to be lowered.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I do not “know” this anymore than you do, Don. What I do know is that, historically, other cities have done more to exhaust their administrative and legal remedies with regard to effluent limits than has Davis. Hopefully, Davis will start to advocate more strongly on behalf of ratepayers, because the situation looks pretty dire if we don’t.
We are going in circles on this, Sue. We might have to add two more wells, which would open up the EIR and the management agreement we have with UCD. I asked you to cite an expert who believes we could successfully renegotiate those.
And, of course, eventually we’d have to do the surface water project anyway, in 20, or 25, or 15 years, or something.
We have issues with salinity and selenium and nitrate, which are higher in the shallower wells.
We have issues with boron and manganese and arsenic, which are higher in the deeper wells.
And let’s not forget chromium.
No matter which direction you go, shallower or deeper, you have a constituent that is a problem.
Don, I have already explained that phasing in huge projects keeps rates more manageable than trying to do them at once. If you don’t see the logic in that, I I’ll leave it to an economist to explain. Suffice it to say that the city will probably never have two water-related projects of this magnitude again. Hence, phasing them in makes fiscal sense.
You want to believe that there is absolutely no alternative but to complete the two megaprojects simultaneously. From what I have gathered, the result will be that Davis will be a little town in the central valley with among the highest utility costs in the state. I think this will be very bad for the city and its citizens.
I have already explained that there are many unlikely assumptions in the plan you are proposing, and that it carries a number of risks to the ground water and to our ability to provide peak capacity even in the unlikely event that all of your assumptions were to prevail.
I believe your plan is inappropriate management of our water supplies and could easily result in policy-caused water shortages in as little as five to ten years. The likely result would be mandatory water conservation.
Nevertheless, I would welcome if any economist supporting your views would write an op-ed and send it to David.
Don, we could say the same thing about relying on only 3 fire stations. We could panic about the reliability of supply and safety of river water too.
Remember, global warming is reducing the snowpack on which our river water supply will depend. We are also in a geologically wet period in California history; rain and snow could well decrease in the future, decreasing the supply of river water. Our water rights are subject to term 91, which curtails our right to the water when the flow is low, which could be most of the year in the future.
The river water is open and unprotected from contamination. It is downstream from the notorious “Colusa Drain” which is thick with agricultural pollutants from Northern California. Who knows what is going to end up in the river in the future, or whether or not treatment will be adequate?
We could go on and on about the uncertainties of surface water as well as the uncertainties concerning groundwater.
Personally, I feel safer with groundwater because it is not open to every inorganic and organic pollutant that comes along, and is not downstream from the Colusa drain. But I accept the fact that we all worry about different constituents.
Supply and safety of the surface water is a non-issue.
Global warming is a non-issue.
Do you really want to debate those with respect to the reliability of our water supply? That is absurd.
Contamination of the river water is no more likely than contamination of the ground water supply. We are already dealing with possible toxic contamination of the ground water in east Davis.
All of those are irrelevant, and if you are attempting to compare them to the uncertainties of quadrupling (or more) our use of the deep water over a 20 to 25-year period, it is an unfortunate rhetorical device.
You have no reason whatsoever to feel safer with groundwater than surface water, nor should anyone else. I am surprised you are making this argument.
“Remember, global warming is reducing the snowpack on which our river water supply will depend. We are also in a geologically wet period in California history; rain and snow could well decrease in the future, decreasing the supply of river water.”
Where do you get this stuff? California will be either warmer and wetter or warmer and drier in the future. Having access to river water in addition to ground water will be a plus in either case. Diversifying your supply is a plus.
This growth-inducing elephant will go down on the cost alone, sorry to say. Further, there is no technical or fiscal support for needing it.
[quote]All of those are irrelevant, and if you are attempting to compare them to the uncertainties of quadrupling (or more) our use of the deep water over a 20 to 25-year period, it is an unfortunate rhetorical device.–[b]Don Shor[/b] [/quote]Don, we are already using mostly deep well water and our usage is going down, so I don’t have any idea why you keep throwing around this “quadrupling or more” use of deep water business.
What is going to quadruple or more is our water rates if we don’t deviate from the current trajectory.
“What I do know is that, historically, other cities have done more to exhaust their administrative and legal remedies with regard to effluent limits than has Davis.”
It is worthwhile repeating that a NO vote on the proposed ballot measure to be put before the voters in June that rejects the current surface water project, according to Davis Public Works Director Clark, is the only way that a variance will be approved by the State water quality agency.
Yes, Sue,[b] we are already quadrupling our water use[/b], combined with the increased UCD usage. I have made that point repeatedly on this blog. [b]It is a fact.[/b] A fact. Need the numbers? That’s why I “keep throwing [it] around.” And it is likely to continue. Unless, of course, you assume that Davis and UC Davis will not grow in the next 20 – 25 years, or that you can force enough conservation to make up the difference.
The current use of the deep wells is not considered a long term sustainable approach to providing water for Davis and UCD. That [i]fact[/i] is addressed in both the EIR for the deep wells, and the groundwater management agreement between UCD and the City of Davis. The surface water project is part of the long term planning. You, on the other hand, plan to continue that quadrupled usage for at least 20 – 25 years.
@ davisite: I think at this point you have exaggerated Mr. Clark’s statement when you say it is “the only way”.
[quote]What I do know is that, historically, other cities have done more to exhaust their administrative and legal remedies with regard to effluent limits than has Davis.[/quote]
It is my understanding that most cities have LOST in that battle…
I have been reading a lot of water material in the last few weeks. There seems to be a push throughout the state of CA for conjunctive water use. From DWR website:
[quote]The deliberate combined use of groundwater and surface water is commonly termed “conjunctive use.”
Conjunctive use means actively managing the aquifer systems as an underground reservoir. During wet years, when more surface water is available, surface water is stored underground by recharging the aquifers with surplus surface water.
During dry years, the stored water is available in the aquifer system to supplement or replace diminished surface water supplies.
Conjunctive use is an effective tool for increasing the overall water supply. DWR is studying several areas in the lower Sacramento Valley where conjunctive use operations may be possible.[/quote]
It is becoming pretty obvious to me this is the direction the state is going to force things to go as a way to better manage the environmental resource that is our aquifer system…
[quote]You have cut and pasted a chart from davismerchants.org that merely lists constituent levels in some wells. I looked up davismerchants.org, and it says it is a website owned by Don Shor. [b]-Sue Greenwald[/b][/quote]That is correct. Don Shor is the registrant and administrative contact for that domain name. Anyone may view the domain registration information at [url]http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/davismerchants.org[/url] or any of myriad other sites providing similar information.
[quote]Re: John Munn’s credentials (Elaine); from his campaign web site:
“I am a graduate of UC Davis with Bachelor of Science degrees in Soil and Water Science and in Engineering, along with a Master of Science degree in Soil Science. I am now working as a soil and water scientist with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.”[/quote]
Thanks for this information. It certainly makes Mr. Munn’s criticisms a bit more credible, since he is an engineer in soil/water science. My hope is that he will take the effort to come to the WAC, and express his concerns, for a proper vetting. I, for one, am interested to hear what he has to say and the attendant responses from city staff/experts…
[quote]Most people, myself included, find it much easier to understand the water works question in graphical form: [/quote]
LOL The graphic was a hoot and the analogy very apt!
“In fact, the only reason that Mr. Clarke thinks that could constitute good cause is if the voters, through a referendum, vote down the rate hikes.”
…taken from the Vanguard’s article, Oct. 4. the quotation marks are mine and no quotation marks were around Mr. Clark’s reported statement.
[quote]Yes, Sue, [b]we are already quadrupling our deep water use[/b], combined with the increased UCD usage. I have made that point repeatedly on this blog. [b]It is a fact.[/b] A fact. Need the numbers? That’s why I “keep throwing [it] around.”–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Exactly my point Don. We are already drawing most of our water from the deep aquifer, with more deep wells coming on line shortly. That is the status quo. We do not need to quadruple our deeper water use to explore interim alternatives that will keep our rates lower.
SIgh. That is the status quo. Yes. We HAVE quadrupled our deeper water use. That is unsustainable.
I give up.
Elaine: [i]”There seems to be a push throughout the state of CA for conjunctive water use.”[/i]
It makes a lot of sense… so I expect it to be difficult to implement in this state.
[quote]Supply and safety of the surface water is a non-issue.[b]- Don[/b][/quote]With all due respect, I am not sure that is clear.
@ David Suder: Compared to the ground water? Let’s compare.
In 1991 there was a disastrous toxic spill into the Sacramento River. A tanker load of Vapam (Metam sodium) spilled, nineteen thousand gallons. Vapam is a complete sterilant. The effects were devastating. This is not to understate the impact of that event, but “[b]y the first week in August things were pretty much back to normal. Southern Pacific had dismantled the barges and recreation vehicles and boats were allowed to return to the lakefront. Testing of the lake waters found toxic substances in only one out of 78 samples. There was hardly a trace in in the river, either. If it weren’t for the 200,000 dead fish, three-hundred ill residents, and millions of dollars in damage and lost tourist business, one might not even know that California’s largest inland water disaster had even happened.”
[A Toxic Nightmare: The Dunsmuir Metam Sodium Spill Revisited
July, 1997]
Meanwhile, the east Davis superfund site has been cleaning up for close to three decades now. Contamination of ground water is much more difficult to deal with. With surface water, you have millions of gallons of water to dilute the toxin. With ground water, the plume just continues to migrate toward the aquifer. In another incident, thousands of gallons of gasoline disappeared from the tanks at the gas station at the corner of 5th and L Streets. The only way that was discovered, if I recall, was by observing the discrepancies in their bookkeeping.
Mitigating and monitoring groundwater contamination is much more complicated than surface water.
[i]”A tanker load of Vapam (Metam sodium) spilled, nineteen thousand gallons. Vapam is a complete sterilant. The effects were devastating.”[/i]
One irony of that train wreck is that Dunsmuir, as long as I can remember and likely decades before, has advertised itself as “the Home Of The Best Water On Earth(tm).” ([url]http://dunsmuir.com/relocation/qualityoflife.php[/url]) In 1980, when I was 16 years old, I took a car trip to the Oregon Caves and back. We stopped in Dunsmuir on the road home, especially for a chance to have a drink of the Best Water On Earth(tm). That pristine drinking water was …. drumroll please … okay.
In subsequent years I’ve had better. The drinking water in Alaska is extremely good. Same thing in British Columbia. Perhaps my favorite California municipal water is what you get on tap in San Francisco–from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. (Oddly, I don’t recall the drinking water in Yosemite being anything special.) The tap water in Oakland (EBMUD) is very good also. … By far the worst municipal water I’ve had in the United States is the tap water in Isla Vista. It is almost undrinkable. I know many people don’t like Davis water. (I suspect many of them were spoiled by EBMUD or SF water.) But I am fine with Davis water. When it’s refrigerated, I’d take it over any brand of bottled water.
[img]http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-ca/usca44299.jpeg[/img]
[quote]On July 14th 1991 there was a disastrous toxic spill into the Sacramento River. [b]- Don[/b][/quote]Don…you cited the metam sodium spill to support your contention that safety of surface water is “[i]not an issue[/i]?” I think the metam sodium spill was a pretty good illustration of the [i]vulnerability[/i] of surface water. But maybe that’s just me.
There’s no doubt that groundwater can become contaminated. However, surface water pollutant concentrations can spike quickly (and perhaps without detection, in the case of an unreported spill). What gets spilled or runs off into the Colusa Drain on Tuesday is what would be in our surface water system on Wednesday.
The time scale of groundwater pollution is orders of magnitude greater than surface water, so at least we have time to identify and react to pollution. According to EPA Region IX, Frontier Fertilizer pollutants (spilled how many decades ago?) have not yet been detected in the uppermost aquifer serving the Davis municipal water supply. (“No Site contaminants above drinking water standards have been detected in the A-2.” [Referring to the A-2 aquifer, which begins at 180′ bgs in that area.] [url]http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/ViewByEPAID/CAD071530380?OpenDocument[/url]) Moreover, it would take a [i]very[/i] long time for pollutants to reach the deeper aquifers.
Your statement “mitigating and monitoring groundwater contamination is much more complicated than surface water” is a broad generalization. What pollutants? At what concentration? How widespread? I’m not saying that groundwater pollution is a simpler problem; I’m saying…it depends. Given the greater temporal variability of surface water pollutants, monitoring would certainly need to be more [i]frequent[/i] for surface water, and probably for a larger suite of analytes. Once a pollutant is in your incoming water supply, the treatment technologies are the same regardless of whether it came from surface or groundwater.
You believe that surface water is safer, and you are certainly entitled to that opinion. People of good will can differ.
I am saying that a river with an average discharge of 11,460 cubic feet per second (Colusa gauge) is likely to dilute anything to levels that are well below health hazards very quickly.
When I was young we got Arrowhead water before Nestle took them over. I always imagined it came out of Angeles National Forest somewhere but now I wonder where they really got it. It was filtered and was quite good. The stuff in the tap came from the Owen’s, Colorado or Feather rivers. I couldn’t believe that you could transport it that far without its quality declining. Later the tap water where I lived came from the Mad River in a system where residents subsidized industrial pulp mills. But the best water I ever had was when I lived on a ranch in the Coast range where we had our own spring. I guess that is why I find Davis’ tap water so vulgar that even Sacramento River water would be an improvement.
The very simple lesson that I am taking from the arguments presented by Don Shor and David Suder regarding potential contamination of water sources is that the most prudent course would be diversification.
Excellent point medwoman!
Davis tap water:
– Tastes terrible to most people
– Leaves hard water scale and permanent water spots on fixtures appliances, cars, glass… anything that it comes into regular contact with
– Fouls plumbing, water heaters and water faucets
– Kills some species of plants in the house and in the yard
– Does not rinse soap/shampoo off well unless softened
– Causes people to install salt-based water softners… or pay thousands of dollars for non-salt softeners that do not work as well
– Causes people to purchase drinking water… including individual bottled water… the next thing the evironmental wackos will try to eliminate after they get done taking away the freedom to use single-use plastic bags