All across the country the headlines talk about a mild winter. Here in the valley, not only is the snow pack less than 20 percent of average, but this year has been unusually mild with temperatures hovering at or above the record highs for the date. It is not just California, it is most of the country.Sacramento set a record high on Wednesday at 66 degrees. The next day, the forecast called for not quite a record high, but a high temperature ten degrees above average for the date. Still there is no rain in sight.
And it is not just California this time. Wrote the Washington Post: “It’s not in your imagination. The unusually mild temperatures across several regions of the country in the past few months are disrupting the natural cycles that define the winter landscape.”
Distinguishing weather from climate is always a tricky thing, but the trend has to be alarming.
Wrote the Washington Post: “Scientists – as well as those who question dire global warming predictions – emphasize that one warm season should not be interpreted as a broader sign of climate change. But several researchers said the decline in cold snaps in the United States fits with a pattern of warming driven in part by human activity.”
“It’s about long-term trends, and one year does not make a trend,” said Doug Inkley, a senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation. But he added, “We already, in the lower 48, have long-term warming that has had a large impact on us.”
The Post adds: “Temperature anomalies happen for many reasons, and [Deke] Arndt said some of the mild weather stems from a persistent ridge of high pressure that has settled over the eastern third of the country, bringing southern winds in many areas. But he added that the shifts in seasonality now on display are in line with the warming the United States has experienced in recent years.” Mr. Arndt is chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the National Climatic Data Center.
” ‘We’ve seen consistently, in the last couple of decades, more consistent warm episodes for the season than cold episodes,’ Arndt said, adding that the ‘climate wrapper’ that affects local weather is akin to the connection between parenting and how children behave. ‘There’s always local factors to a kid’s behavior. Maybe he was stressed out or didn’t get enough sleep or was hanging out with other kids who don’t behave. But when you see a pattern to that, you think, “Maybe it is parenting.” ‘ ” the Post reports.
We should be long past the point where we are debating whether climate change and global warming are real, and we should be at the point where we start changing the way we live our lives and the way we consume products.
Even in Davis, where carbon footprint is part of most people’s daily lexicon, I think that is a tricky prospect.
While many in this community are moving forward with ways to reduce their own carbon footprints, there is a sizable sector that takes offense to issues like banning plastic bags and wood burning in fireplaces.
While it true that neither activity, particularly at the local level, will have a huge impact on either our carbon footprint or the overall battle to combat global warming, both are emblematic of the changes we must make and the personal sacrifices we have to take if we want our children to be able to live at the same standard of living that we have.
I will make these critical points separately, because there are separate issues involved.
For wood burning, we are simply at the point where we can no longer rely on the burning of fossil fuels or wood as our primary source of heat.
For plastic bags, we are simply at a point where we cannot consume products that we throw away. People who argue that they re-use their plastic bags are missing a critical point – whether you use it once or twice, you are still discarding it, which means it ends up in landfills, it ends up as litter, and another product has to be produced which takes energy.
There is an inherent problem with all environmental efforts of this sort and it is what economists and social scientists would call a free-rider problem. The individual’s contribution to the environment is non-noticeable. That means if you as an individual litter with a single bag, it is not going to produce a huge effect on the environment.
As an individual you will not have a huge impact on the environment if you purchase a re-usable bag rather than if you use a plastic bag. Davis as a community will not have a noticeable impact either.
However, if every individual practices wasteful habits, the problems are perpetuated and so, collectively, our behavior must change and that requires laws.
I laugh at statements like this from Columnist Bob Dunning: “Davis, a city that values personal choice and personal responsibility, now wants to make criminals out of ordinary citizens who dare to bring home a bag of oranges in a plastic bag.”
This is exactly the problem.
First of all, the ordinance would not be enforced against the consumers, it would be enforced against the suppliers. Grocery stores would be prohibited from providing single-use bags to customers. It would not be something that is illegal to possess as though it were illegal drugs.
Second, in terms of the “Pro-Choice City in America” – if we want to survive as society, we have to get over the notion that we have a liberty to litter and consume wastefully. The freedom to destroy our ecosystem, our global climate and ultimately perhaps our species is not something that we ought to be fighting for.
We need to change the way we act and operate within our economy. I think a lot of this can be done at the personal level through personal choices to change one’s lifestyle.
But for the big issues – we need our leaders in government to help direct business to be more responsible environmentally.
Unfortunately, our economy does not do a good job of that. There is actually a cost to environmental degradation, but we still needed to pass tough laws and enforce those laws to prevent dumping chemicals in waterways, reduce air emissions, improve fuel efficiency, etc.
The interesting thing is that laws not only create incentives to comply, they actually change the rules of the game so that now many companies actually market themselves as environmental stewards.
Unfortunately, the political debate over global warming is starting to take its toll. The US should be enacting its own measures and creating goals after which it can start working with other industrial countries to help reduce the carbon footprint of the developing world.
Instead, the US is embroiled in a bitter partisan debate, with at least a sizable portion of one of the parties in patent denial.
It is ironic because that party launched us into a war based on a slogan that the smoking gun should not be a mushroom cloud, and yet on a much bigger issue, they are willing to allow the smoking gun to be some sort of cataclysmic event that means it is too late to act.
If you want to argue that plastic bags and wood burning stove bans do not get us there – that is fine. On the other hand, we have no business burning wood for heat or using disposable goods. Until we come to terms with that fact, we are bound to lose this fight.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
” We should be long past the point where we are debating whether climate change and global warming are real,”
this is not the first time the vanguard has said this. This statement is arrogant, condescending, etc….
in other words, people should just accept that my viewpoint is the right one…. because I said so…. says the self-proclaimed “peoples vanguard.”
this statement is quite disturbing, and quite revealing as to what the vanguard truly thinks of the people in relation to itself.
and we should be at the point where we start changing the way we live our lives and the way we consume products.
“and we should be at the point where we start changing the way we live our lives and the way we consume products.”
I’m just curious. does the vanuard author have a job? because if it does not, then it has no business telling others to change their lives.
“this is not the first time the vanguard has said this. This statement is arrogant, condescending, etc….”
Get over it unless you do not wish to have a planet for your kids to live on.
“I’m just curious. does the vanuard author have a job? because if it does not, then it has no business telling others to change their lives.”
You don’t consider the Vanguard a job?
Second, in terms of the “Pro-Choice City in America” – if we want to survive as society, we have to get over the notion that we have a liberty to litter and consume wastefully. The freedom to destroy our ecosystem, our global climate and ultimately perhaps our species is not something that we ought to be fighting for.
1. this article is written under the assumption the vanguard knows people as a whole choose to be wasteful in their ordinary day lives. That assumption is questionable at best. I reuse things where I live all the time.
2. THe article is making dunnings point for him, it argues dunnings charge that bag banners are against choice by saying people should do what the vanguard says and fight for environmental causes the vanguard deems worthy.
and one last point…
I don’t accept totalitarian views of government just because one persons “good intentions” are behind it.
“If you want to argue that plastic bags and wood burning stove bans do not get us there – that is fine. On the other hand, we have no business burning wood for heat or using disposable goods.”
The point of your commentary is seriously weakened by including wood-burning stoves to heat our homes. Very few use their wood stoves to heat their entire homes but rather to supplement their central heating in specific areas. Without their wood stove, they would be using a energy- guzzling electrical space heaters with its attendant high cost and the environmental impact of electrical generation.
91 Octane
A couple of questions about your post.
1) Is having a job a criteria for “telling others to change their lives”? What if one is self employed, retired, or independently wealthy?
Perhaps you just do not like suggestions about how to improve things in general?
2) I feel safe in assuming that you are not advocating littering and wasteful consumption since you state that you reuse things. So if you are not
personally guilty of littering and wasteful consumption, then why take offense at attempts to limit them ?
3) From previous posts, you do not seem to be against laws and regulations in general. You seemed quite supportive of the ban on camping on
the quad for instance. But what are laws and regulations but ways of telling people how to live their lives. It seems to me that supporting a law
or regulation is a statement of one’s own values and this form of public expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, not a manifestation or
arrogance or condescension.
The Vanguard and many on here have spent [i]years[/i] now arguing for the right to continue degrading the environment by polluting the Delta, in some cases for decades if necessary, because of the costs of mitigating the city’s impact.
Your environmentalist credentials are tarnished to the point that this headline actually made me laugh this morning.
[i]we are simply at the point where we can no longer rely on the burning of fossil fuels or wood as our primary source of heat.[/i]
For the vast majority of Davis residents (including, I am certain, you) the choice is between natural gas and wood. In my case it is propane. For most people changing to other heating sources is not affordable yet.
[quote]First of all, the ordinance would not be enforced against the consumers, it would be enforced against the suppliers. Grocery stores would be prohibited from providing single-use bags to customers. It would not be something that is illegal to possess as though it were illegal drugs.[/quote]
LOL It will be enforced against individual consumers in the form of a tax on platic bags, which will disproportionately hit the low income…
[quote]The Vanguard and many on here have spent years now arguing for the right to continue degrading the environment by polluting the Delta, in some cases for decades if necessary, because of the costs of mitigating the city’s impact.
Your environmentalist credentials are tarnished to the point that this headline actually made me laugh this morning.[/quote]
I had the exact same reaction when I saw today’s headline – which goes back to 91 Octane’s complaint – [quote]THe article is making dunnings point for him, it argues dunnings charge ….by saying people should do what the vanguard says and fight for environmental causes the vanguard deems worthy. [/quote]
“It will be enforced against individual consumers in the form of a tax on platic bags, which will disproportionately hit the low income…”
That is not what is being proposed in Davis. But you do realize, as was pointed out previously, that you are already paying that tax on plastic bags.
[i]We should be long past the point where we are debating whether climate change and global warming are real,”[/i]
Essentially the same statement can be made about the groundwater situation in Davis. Yet that seems not to matter to you and some others, who continue to argue that the consistent conclusion of numerous and long running independent studies are subject to a different interpretation, and therefore, Davis should continue to do damage to the environment and its groundwater supply.
Don’s comment is on point. Your credibility about environmental issues is severely impaired.
Interesting stat on weather reflecting climate change: “321 consecutive months with the temperature above the 20th century average”, and persistently hotter La Nina temperatures.
[url]http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/show.html[/url]
Graph from the World Meteorological Association, [url]http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/gcs_2011_en.html[/url]
[img]http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/gcs_fig_1.jpg[/img]
How to post images on the Davis Vanguard? Thanks, G&G
I fixed your tags. Look at the menu bar just above the “Add a comment” box. You’ll see one that makes image tags.
Because the water project is not convenient at the moment, let us put that one off shall we?
then in the next breath rip other people for not doing enough to protect the environment.
I’m curious as to the relationship between my view on the water project and global warming. Don in particular, what is the position I have taken in favor of polluting the delta?
San Francisco and more recently Seattle have banned the use of these bags by retailers. Austin Texas is set to vote on a ban that will require retailer to charge you $0.25/bag if you use one for your purchase (there are exclusions for fast food, medications, and a few other things).
China banned the distribution of free bags by retailers back in June of 2008, and even with it’s very weak enforcement it has been estimated to have dropped consumption of these by over 50% in the first year after implementation.
Thanx Don Shor, G&G
Most people agree that we should try to think about climate scientifically.
This article fails to do so in two key ways,.
1. It confuses climate with weather.
2. It assumes that we can influence climate by changes in our carbon output. The same models that show that human activity influences climate show that nothing the US can reasonably do will have an effect on continued climate change.
If somebody advocates radical economic changes even though there is no scientific reason to believe that they stop climate change, then they either have other motivations or they have some sort of religious belief that is not rational.
JR:
You say, this article confuses climate with weather.
In fact, I made it a point to state: “Distinguishing weather from climate is always a tricky thing, but the trend has to be alarming.”
MOREOVER, if you would have read the quotes, the scientists discussed this as well. Now you may disagree, but there was no confusion of weather and climate at all.
Rather than go back through years of Vanguard posts and commentaries on the surface water project, I’ll ask you first to succinctly state your position on:
— developing a surface water supply for Davis, and
— applying for a variance.
[quote]The Vanguard and many on here have spent years now arguing for the right to continue degrading the environment by polluting the Delta, in some cases for decades if necessary, because of the costs of mitigating the city’s impact. Your environmentalist credentials are tarnished to the point that this headline actually made me laugh this morning.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, I think this statement is both derisive in tone and very unfair to David
We are already spending $100 million to control the nitrogen effluent by building a new wastewater treatment plant.
The salinity that our groundwater adds (we will be using mostly softer deep water in the near future) to our total salinity effluent over and above the salinity of river water is very, very small. A far, far larger component of salinity in our effluent is salinity of the waste itself and that from water softeners. The salinity of agricultural run-off swamps the miniscule incremental decrease that we would achieve with surface water, especially if we meet our salinity limits by regulating water softeners (which shouldn’t be missed once our new deep wells are in operation).
Meanwhile, scientists predict that climate change will bring serious salt water intrusion into the Delta from rising sea water levels. According to the following state report:[quote]Even without levee failures, Delta water supplies and aquatic habitat will be affected due to saltwater intrusion. An increase in the penetration of seawater into the Delta will further degrade drinking and agricultural water quality and alter ecosystem conditions. More freshwater releases from upstream reservoirs will be required to repel the sea to maintain salinity levels for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses. [url]http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf[/url][/quote]As I have written on these pages previously, freshwater releases from upstream reservoirs is the way salinity must ultimately be managed. And what this means is that there will be much less Sacramento River water available for cities.
Our water rights are subject to term 91, meaning that they can always be severely restricted if water supply is limited due to decreased snow pack and more freshwater releases from upstream reservoirs.
If you want to say that David has no right to talk about the environment because he has raised some questions about the fiscal infeasibility of doing both the surface water and the new wastewater treatment plant at the same time, the burden of proof is on you to show that the $250 million that the project will cost the City of Davis gives the environment more bang for the buck than alternative environmental uses of that $250 million.
I would posit that decreasing Davis’ miniscule fraction of incremental salinity, in the face of massive salinity intrusion into the Delta expected in the future, has less environmental impact than almost any other environmental expenditure that we could make with the $250 million dollars that the project is costing the city of Davis (I am including its additional O&M in the Davis share of the project cost).
That’s actually one of the reasons I asked the question – I honestly do not know what my position is on the water supply project or applying for variance. It will largely depend on where we can get the costs of the project. I do not believe this is a huge environmental issue at this point precisely because we are talking about discharge levels that are at most marginally higher than future requirements. And I have yet to see solid analysis as to whether the levels need to be where they are. And furthermore, my specific discussion here is on global warming and I frankly do not think there is a global warming impact here. If there is, I would like to understand that as well.
Actually, Sue, I would prefer that you let David answer a question that I direct specifically to him. I am done arguing with you on this topic. I have concluded that your water position is irresponsible, short-sighted, and likely to lead to degradation of the groundwater and/or policy-induced water shortages for the residents of Davis. But we have gone around and around on it, and we’re done. So in view of David’s long history of posts and commentaries that are, in my opinion, adversarial to the surface water project, I wanted to hear his explanation. Unfortunately, by posting your long explanation of your own position, you undercut any opportunity for him to say it in his own words.
This is simple. The basis of the water regulations we are facing is the eight constituents in our effluent, most of which derive from our groundwater. The only fiscally feasible way to get rid of them is to bring in surface water.
Sue Greenwald has just posted a long argument against trying to reduce pollution of the Delta. This is in the face of countless experts and thousands of hours of testimony, regulatory hearings, and published policies and practices designed to reduce that pollution. Apparently she, rather uniquely, doesn’t think the Delta experts who have been designing mitigation plans for something two decades now know what they are talking about. In fact, Sue is now trivializing the Delta issue.
The fact that David now professes himself to be undecided on the subject is simply amazing. I am certain I am not the only one who reads here regularly who believes David opposes the surface water project based on his own statements.
[i]”I do not believe this is a huge environmental issue at this point precisely because we are talking about discharge levels that are at most marginally higher than future requirements. And I have yet to see solid analysis as to whether the levels need to be where they are…”[/i]
Why do you think the requirements have been promulgated in the first place? How long do you think Davis and Woodland, and other Delta perimeter cities, have had to begin the process of reducing their contamination of the Delta.
Seriously, what do you think this whole water project is all about, David?
Don:
First, my view has shifted somewhat as information has come out.
Second, I view my role in this process as necessarily critical hoping that whatever we end up with is the best possible.
Third, I favor a public vote as I think the 218 process is prejudicial.
“Why do you think the requirements have been promulgated in the first place?”
If you go back to the clean water act itself, it was because we literally dumped crap and pollution into water ways. The question that remains for me is whether the current requirements are at the exact levels needed and if we exceed them at least somewhat if we are really polluting the delta.
“Seriously, what do you think this whole water project is all about, David?”
As I understand it, there are a number of different reasons we are trying to do this now, one of them is the discharge requirements, but others have to do with issues with the existing supply, reliability of that supply into the future, and timing of permitting. There may be other reasons as well.
Yes, a variance is a permit to pollute so i had the same reaction as Don Shor.
Second, with regards to global warming burning wood is better than burning fossil fuels. With regards to public health burning natural gas is superior to wood because of the particulates. So i guess you need to be more careful about conflating issues.
[quote]Actually, Sue, I would prefer that you let David answer a question that I direct specifically to him. I am done arguing with you on this topic. I have concluded that your water position is irresponsible, short-sighted, and likely to lead to degradation of the groundwater and/or policy-induced water shortages for the residents of Davis. But we have gone around and around on it, and we’re done. So in view of David’s long history of posts and commentaries that are, in my opinion, adversarial to the surface water project, I wanted to hear his explanation. Unfortunately, by posting your long explanation of your own position, you undercut any opportunity for him to say it in his own words. —[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Who is moderating the moderator here? Anyone has a right to make logical, fact-based comments in response to anything that anyone posts. [quote]Apparently she, rather uniquely, doesn’t think the Delta experts who have been designing mitigation plans for something like two decades now know what they are talking about. In fact, Sue is now trivializing the Delta issue.—[b]DON SHOR[/b][/quote]Don, first there are many experts who agree with me.
Secondly, we can meet our salinity requirements without the surface water project.
Thirdly, the mitigation plans are still evolving, which is why the variance process was proposed by the regulators.
Don, I my opinion the Sacramento river pollution argument is one of the weaker arguments in favor of the project, for the reasons that I have explained above.
Breaking my New Years resolution…
[i]Don, first there are many experts who agree with me. [/i]
Name one.
[i]Secondly, we can meet our salinity requirements without the surface water project. [/i]
This is why I say your position is likely to lead to policy-induced water shortages.
[i]Thirdly, the mitigation plans are still evolving, which is why the variance process was proposed by the regulators. [/i]
The likelihood of getting a sequence of variances over many years is only one of the problematic assumptions of your water policy proposal.
[i]I’m still waiting for your explanation as to why my view on this issue negates my global warming concerns.[/i]
You have just expressed lack of knowledge and lack of certitude about the issues surrounding the water project. Yet you have great certitude about policy proposals that you are linking to global warming. You use jargon that puts you squarely in the ‘alarmist’ camp regarding climate change. I get a strong sense that your environmental views are driven more by ideology than by science.
Just take the essay you wrote today, and substitute “Delta water quality” for “global warming.” You are calling for symbolic, largely pointless actions to somehow affect climate change. But when there is a clear environment-related policy before the residents of Davis that has known costs, you have expressed skepticism and opposition from the start. Most of your argument has been about the cost. Most global warming initiatives contain significant costs.
It seems that you are willing to impose behavior change and costs on others in the interest of largely ineffectual environmental outcomes. I’m guessing you don’t heat your house with firewood. And you make rather spectacular statements about likely climate change policies that you surely know are not going to be implemented in years, if ever (“we are simply at the point where we can no longer rely on the burning of fossil fuels or wood as our primary source of heat”).
I urge you to read about the Delta and all the planning and regulatory decision-making that went into the salinity, selenium, and other regulations. I could provide you with any number of links. And there are some of the foremost experts on things like Delta fisheries right here at UCD.
It is the disconnect between your alarmist rhetoric on the one issue, and your absence of self-education on the other, that leads me to say your environmentalist credentials are tarnished.
dmg
My comment stands. Despite the qualifications and hedges, this post is nothing but confusing climate and weather. Not science.
And I notice, and others have also and remarked on it, a certain pattern in your responses. You just ignore any questions or comments that point out problems or errors in your postings. I would suggest more thoughtful responses, as they will cause your writings to be read with greater respect.
Of course your are free to ignore this advice.
@ Don Shor, to your first question: I believe it is pretty much taken for granted by the majority of water professionals that the extraordinary cost of reducing the tiny incremental amount of salinity that constitutes the difference between high quality groundwater without water softeners and river water without softeners is not worth the benefit in terms of the environment.
Very few of the water professionals who have recommended going ahead with our $250 million water project immediately in the face of our $100 million new wastewater treatment plant requirement have done so based on the morality of the benefits of the miniscule incremental salinity reduction to the health of the Sacramento river. This is probably not entirely unrelated to the fact that, even with today’s stringent standards, we can meet the salinity requirements without importing surface water. But I would recommend that you ask them directly. You could start by asking Walter Sadler or Frank Loge. You could ask George Tchabonaglous or Ed Schoeder. Just ask them whether they honestly think that the Sacramento river will suffer if we use low salinity water from deep wells and regulate water softeners for an interim period before importing surface water.
I have talked with water professionals who think that we should go ahead now and others who think it is too expensive and should be phased in. But none of the water professionals that I have talked with have mentioned the morality of these tiny levels of salinity reduction which are swamped by agricultural effluent salinity and the salinity from water softeners and the waste itself as the reason for proceeding immediately.
In answer to your second comment: I understand that you are very afraid of “policy-induced water shortages”. I think that is your real concern, and it is always a legitimate concern. What I don’t understand is why you wouldn’t first look at slowing growth, given that you are so afraid of water shortages. In my first comment on this thread, I discussed why river water shortages are quite likely to occur in the future. If future water shortages are that much of a threat, it seems unconscionable to promote more growth in our arid state.
As to your third comment about variances: As I have said, we can probably meet our selenium and salinity requirements without surface water.
David–I realize there is not the space or time for you to justify your proposals, but nevertheless you grossly oversimplify in your statements with regard to environmental protection. All energy use and material use decisions are trade-offs, each decision about what to use has both benefits and costs associated with it; and it is not always straightforward or clear as to which choice is best.
Where you are most grossly off the mark is in making your blanket statement against firewood use. There are indeed situations, even here in Davis, where use of firewood for heat makes the best sense not only economically, but also from an environmental perspective. Consider that much of the dead wastewood that rots (or that gets disposed of in landfill) is eventually converted to CO2 upon decomposition, adding to atmospheric CO2 just as is fireplace burning. It makes a lot of sense to burn much of the deadwood in fireplaces to heat homes, rather than leave it to rot. It also makes sense to leave some fraction of deadwood in the environment, to support the non-human critters that also use deadwood for shelter or carbon/energy source.
Based on the available information, we concluded, and I continue to believe, that prudence demands developing a surface water supply at this time.
Ed Schroeder, Davis Enterprise
“The Panel unanimously concluded that postponement of the project could result in the failure to comply with future wastewater discharge requirements.”
NATIONAL WATER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Final Report , Independent Advisory Panel — 8 water experts.
Review of the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project
[Specifically cited: EC, selenium, boron. Note that the deep wells are higher in boron than the intermediate wells.]
[i]”I discussed why river water shortages are quite likely to occur in the future. If future water shortages are that much of a threat, it seems unconscionable to promote more growth in our arid state.”[/i]
While I consider residential growth a very minor issue in this discussion, I think it is unreasonable to assume that Davis will not grow at all in the next 20 – 25 years, especially given the enrollment plans announced by UC Davis. We can’t conserve our way out of the addition of 5,000 more students and the associated staff and faculty support they require.
Davis has planned very well by acquiring water rights to the river water. Shortages of river water can be mitigated for short periods by use of the well water. Conjunctive use is the answer to most water supply concerns. But if we don’t develop the surface water and don’t increase our capacity, serious shortages are almost inevitable.
[i]we can probably meet our selenium and salinity requirements without surface water.
[/i]
Not without seriously stressing our capacity and our infrastructure. And we cannot solve the boron problem without surface water.
[quote]The Panel unanimously concluded that postponement of the project could result in the failure to comply with future wastewater discharge requirements.”
NATIONAL WATER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Final Report , Independent Advisory Panel — 8 water experts.
Review of the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project
[Specifically cited: EC, selenium, boron. Note that the deep wells are higher in boron than the intermediate wells.] [/quote][b][b]”COULD”[/b][/b] result in failure to comply? What kind of statement is that on which to base a $250 million decision?
Only two months ago, three and a half years after this report was written, I asked staff specifically what our inflow levels and effluent limits were, and whether they could be met within the context of our current groundwater plans, and I was told that they hadn’t looked at that information. They are analyzing it now. So none of our experts had access to the actual effluent inflow data and how it relates to our existing plans for new deep wells and repiping of intermediate wells for landscape irrigation when the alternatives were analyzed. [quote]But if we don’t develop the surface water and don’t increase our capacity, serious shortages are almost inevitable.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I agree that we should obtain river water, although I do not agree that without it, serious water shortages are inevitable. The issue for me is timing as it relates to affordability.[quote]And we cannot solve the boron problem without surface water.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]There are no boron limits. The vast majority of boron we ingest comes from fruit and vegetables. Only a small fraction comes from drinking water.
Don, the Sacramento river water is very dirty and filled with contaminants. We are taking our water just downstream from the notoriously polluting Colusa Drain. A lot of water professionals I have talked with feel that this is not very high quality surface water.
[i]There are no boron limits. The vast majority of boron we ingest comes from fruit and vegetables. Only a small fraction comes from drinking water. [/i]
You know full well that staff is analyzing the impact of the higher boron content of our deeper water source on the city’s ability to meet the coming boron restrictions in our effluent.
[i]Don, the Sacramento river water is very dirty and filled with contaminants.
[/i]
That statement is irresponsible, and you know it.
[i]I asked staff specifically what our inflow levels and effluent limits were, and whether they could be met within the context of our current groundwater plans, and I was told that they hadn’t looked at that information.[/i]
I have repeatedly shown you the data and why it leads to capacity problems.
“Just ask them whether they honestly think that the Sacramento river will suffer if we use low salinity water from deep wells and regulate water softeners for an interim period before importing surface water.”
Good point, Sue. Cost-BENEFIT issues are not usually addressed in the conclusions which are derived from the data that their science is able to collect and analyze. Cost-benefit, political, social and economic considerations are most often controlling and point to an acceptable phased-in,measured change in policy direction.
“We can’t conserve our way out of the addition of 5,000 more students and the associated staff and faculty support they require.”
I thought that UCD was currently accessing Solano County water which could be augmented to meet future growth needs.
David: Could we have a column dedicated to wood burning for home heating in Davis? I would like to explore the notion that the pollution created by wood burning for home heating is usefully analogous to the air pollution that we create with our automobiles. We are forced, quite rightly, to greatly reduce tailpipe emissions of nitrates with catalytic converters and of particulates. Likewise, laws limit emissions from internal combustion engines in places such as warehouses where dilution is limited. Obvious violations of these should and often do lead to sanctions with the force of law. Wood burning at high temperatures in modern low emission stoves in places where atmospheric dilution is ample is a reasonable way forward for Davis. I, as a person who supplements home heating with responsible wood burning, would be willing to pay for a permit to continue. The fee would fund a city regulatory apparatus entrusted with health and safety of wood burning, analogous to the fees paid for smogging ones automobile.
David: Could we have a column dedicated to wood burning for home heating in Davis? I would like to explore the notion that the pollution created by wood burning for home heating is usefully analogous to the air pollution that we create with our automobiles. We are forced, quite rightly, to greatly reduce tailpipe emissions of nitrates with catalytic converters and of particulates. Likewise, laws limit emissions from internal combustion engines in places such as warehouses where dilution is limited. Obvious violations of these should and often do lead to sanctions with the force of law. Wood burning at high temperatures in modern low emission stoves in places where atmospheric dilution is ample is a reasonable way forward for Davis. I, as a person who supplements home heating with responsible wood burning, would be willing to pay for a permit to continue. The fee would fund a city regulatory apparatus entrusted with health and safety of wood burning, analogous to the fees paid for smogging ones automobile.
[quote]dmg: The question that remains for me is whether the current requirements are at the exact levels needed and if we exceed them at least somewhat if we are really polluting the delta. [/quote]
In other words YOU are going to decide if Davis would be polluting the Delta or not?
[quote]Cost-BENEFIT issues are not usually addressed in the conclusions which are derived from the data that their science is able to collect and analyze. Cost-benefit, political, social and economic considerations are most often controlling and point to an acceptable phased-in,measured change in policy direction.[/quote]
But in the cost-BENEFIT analysis, potential fines for noncompliace must be taken into account, no?
[quote]People who argue that they re-use their plastic bags are missing a critical point – whether you use it once or twice, you are still discarding it, which means it ends up in landfills, it ends up as litter, and another product has to be produced which takes energy.[/quote]
You are missing the point. If plastic bags are not given out free at the grocery store for reuse, then dog owners have to purchase plastic bags to contain dog poop, and citizens must purchase plastic bags to line their trash cans. A tax by any other name still sticks it to the pocket book…
“In other words YOU are going to decide if Davis would be polluting the Delta or not?”
How am I going to decide that?
[quote]That is not what is being proposed in Davis. But you do realize, as was pointed out previously, that you are already paying that tax on plastic bags. We probably have enough money in certain funds to be able to subsidize reusable bags for everyone, if we don’t, I’m sure we can find grant money and private donations to do it. In other words, this argument is a red herring.[/quote]
I’m not buying (pardon the pun) your argument that paying 5 cents per plastic bag and having to purchase plastic bags for home use is not a tax. It is anything but a red herring…
“If plastic bags are not given out free at the grocery store for reuse, then dog owners have to purchase plastic bags to contain dog poop, and citizens must purchase plastic bags to line their trash cans. A tax by any other name still sticks it to the pocket book…”
So you are telling me the only way we can operate as a society is to have disposable goods that get thrown into the landfill?
“I’m not buying (pardon the pun) your argument that paying 5 cents per plastic bag and having to purchase plastic bags for home use is not a tax. It is anything but a red herring… “
I’m not proposing that we spend 5 cents per bag, but I do wonder how much we are all spending per bag anyway.
[quote]So you are telling me the only way we can operate as a society is to have disposable goods that get thrown into the landfill?[/quote]
So how do you propose we carry dog poop; line trash cans w/o the use of plastic bags?
A more sensible approach would be to push to have plastic bags fully biodegradable, no?
I’m not proposing anything at this point, but I am suggesting is if your concern about banning grocery bags is that it make it more difficult for people to handle dog poop, that you’re really stretching. We need to find ways to reduce waste, I find it hard to believe my my environmentalist friends are disposing of their plastic bags because of their dogs.
“But in the cost-BENEFIT analysis, potential fines for noncompliace must be taken into account, no?”
In the last analysis, IMO, potential fines will be subject to POLITICAL considerations and will not be draconian, what with a Davis process in place to continue to work towards developing an economically sustainable surface water project. The supposed draconian fines suggested by Mr. Landau,IMO, will not materialize in spite of his threats which are offered, IMO, in an attempt to derail a Davis variance application which would present him and his agency with a monumental political “headache”.In the end, the heads of State agencies are subject to political pressures.
ERM
“how do you propose we carry dog poop; line trash cans w/o the use of plastic bags?
A more sensible approach would be to push to have plastic bags fully biodegradable, no?”
Some alternatives for dog poop: paper towels, squares of newspaper, and the little folded “envelope” of wax paper
such as sweet rolls are dispensed in all work well. For lining trash cans, the heavy duty plastic bags designed for that purpose work well and can be emptied into the larger city disposal containers so that they can be reused over and over.
I agree with you that it would be good to push for fully biodegradable plastic bags, but I see this as complimentary to reducing waste overall not as in opposition to it. Why not attack from both fronts ?
[quote]In the last analysis, IMO, potential fines will be subject to POLITICAL considerations and will not be draconian, what with a Davis process in place to continue to work towards developing an economically sustainable surface water project. The supposed draconian fines suggested by Mr. Landau,IMO, will not materialize in spite of his threats which are offered, IMO, in an attempt to derail a Davis variance application which would present him and his agency with a monumental political “headache”.In the end, the heads of State agencies are subject to political pressures.[/quote]
The problem here is this is speculation on your part, no? Ultimately this is something the WAC is going to have to wrestle with…