On Saturday the Vanguard reported on a memo from Woodland City Manager Paul Navazio to Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton, that effectively eliminated the regional option of a joint Davis-Woodland-West Sacramento project.
But other options remain on the board. As we indicated last week, delays in the release of the Carolla report have complicated an already tight timeframe. There was some thought that this may take the Woodland option off the table completely.
However, several sources have told the Vanguard that this may not be the case. They suggest, should the city of Davis opt definitively to go with the Woodland-JPA option, that Woodland may be willing to wait for an April vote. Woodland, despite some posturing, would have to pay substantially more to “go it alone.”
In the meantime, with the West Sacramento regional facility off the table, there appear to be two possible West Sacramento options still available. One of those would be a Davis-only option that would include a build-out to accommodate future demand. The other would be a scaled down Davis-only option that would allow for a reduction or delay in the build-out.
Last week the Vanguard reported from several sources, hearing that some city staffers prefer the Woodland option despite possibilities of savings for the West Sacramento alternative.
There remain some problems with the West Sacramento alternative, including the ability for the city to have joint authority or ownership in the project.
On the other hand, the city is asking Carollo to do more work on the reduced plan option that would reducing the need for any plant expansion in West Sacramento for twenty years.
Unlike the Woodland project, however, the West Sacramento project would need an new EIR. In our inquiries, we were told that the city may be able to do a footprint EIR, analyzing just the impacts of the footprint of the water pipeline rather than the full impact, much of which was already analyzed at the northern location.
Still, to do the EIR, with comment periods and proper time for analysis, will probably require a minimum of 8 to 10 months, with as much as a year being more realistic.
City Manager Steve Pinkerton initially told the Vanguard that the EIR issue was a legal hang-up in their ability to have a binding initiative on the ballot. The voters could bind the city to a “no” vote but, prior to the EIR, the city manager and city attorney apparently believe it would be problematic to bind them to a specific project.
However, we are led to believe there are ways around that, as well, though at this time, the city manager has nothing new to report on this front.
Meanwhile, the city appears to be hoping that Herb Niederberger, just hired as General Manager over Utilities, Development and Operations and who took over effective on Monday, will help the city with his knowledge and expertise in capital project management to oversee the new water and wastewater projects.
Critics have been concerned about this new development. However, sources have told the Vanguard that one of the reasons that Mr. Niederberger was hired was that the city’s surface water project had become too developer-driven.
This has been our concern for some time, as the same consultant advising the city on the water supply project stands to profit from the Davis-Woodland project.
Now that the West Sacramento option has become a viable alternative, the city needs to have the ability to independently evaluate the project to determine which project is ultimately in the best interest of the community.
Does that alleviate concerns that the city is not treating the West Sacramento option seriously? We shall see what follows.
There are drawbacks to the West Sacramento option, as well, that need to be assessed.
Alan Pryor reported Monday that the “NRC’s Water Management Subcommittee has been working on developing recommendations to achieve an additional 20% reduction in water demands below the state water use target established in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan adopted by the Davis City Council.”
If this plan is workable, the city has the ability to further decrease the size of the water project, which would again bring down the costs.
Is an additional 20% conservation rate realistic? Some question how achievable it is.
However, the NRC recommendations include four major components.
First, indoor fixture retrofit which would encourage 100% participation in low flow toilets, showerheads, and high efficiency clothes washers. He writes, “The estimated savings that could be achieved by this project assume 3 persons/home meeting 100% new efficiency standards of 1.28 gpf toilets, 25 gpl clothes washers, and 2.0 gpm showerheads.”
Mr. Pryor adds: “If a 100% level of participation by the community is achieved, this could provide annual savings of about 750 acre-feet per year at a total cost of about $1,000,000 through 2020.”
Other recommendations include a well park irrigation project which would redirect four “existing intermediate aquifer well outputs to park irrigation use only and contemplates drilling 10 new wells of between 300 – 500 ft each.”
He notes, “Although this recommendation is not strictly water conservation per se, using lower quality well water for park irrigation means higher quality potable water is not otherwise required for this use.”
The use of smart meters to “allow instantaneous, real-time determination of water usage patterns allowing customers to profile their water usage to determine how water is used and to detect leaks” is another proposal. He argues, “Elimination of only about half of the estimated leaks in residential customers’ homes in Davis would provide estimated water savings of about 700 acre-feet per year throughout the City.”
Finally, he writes, “As much as 50% of outdoor water use for irrigation in the City is excessive and above the needs of healthy plants. Reducing this excessive irrigation could save as much as 850 acre-feet per year. It would require a very comprehensive program of rate and tariff restructuring to provide incentives for watering during off-peak hours and retrofitting of some plumbing and irrigation systems to allow for proper use of ‘Smart’ Irrigation Controllers.”
The Vanguard continues to argue that the citizens need a defined project with certain rates to be placed on the ballot. While a November election is technically possible, an April election seems more feasible and, if indeed Woodland can wait until April, there seems no reason to rush the process at this time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]However, [i][b]several sources have told the Vanguard[/b][/i] that this may not be the case. They suggest, should the city of Davis opt definitively to go with the Woodland-JPA option, that Woodland may be willing to wait for an April vote. Woodland, despite some posturing, would have to pay substantially more to “go it alone.”…
Critics have been concerned about this new development. However, [i][b]sources have told the Vanguard[/b][/i] that one of the reasons that Mr. Niederberger was hired was that the city’s surface water project had become too developer-driven…[/quote]
Because all of these opinions are from [i][b]unnamed[/b][/i] sources, it is impossible to gauge if any of it is credible…
[quote]In the meantime, with the West Sacramento regional facility off the table, there appear to be two possible West Sacramento options still available. One of those would be a Davis-only option that would include a build-out to accommodate future demand. The other would be a scaled down Davis-only option that would allow for a reduction or delay in the build-out…[/quote]
I’m assuming the West Sac regional facility refers to the West Sac/Davis/Woodland alternative?
[quote]Mr. Pryor adds: “If a 100% level of participation by the community is achieved, this could provide annual savings of about 750 acre-feet per year at a total cost of about $1,000,000 through 2020.”[/quote]
It is virtually impossibly to obtain 100% voluntary compliance. I am still waiting to hear what confidence level the NRC has that its recommendations can be achieved. I asked this question yesterday in a previous article, and I have not yet checked to see if there was any response. My feeling personally is the NRC may be a bit optimistic in its projections that we can achieve 20% conservation over the state mandated 20% already required. And thus the WAC must take that into account when deciding city demand needs for sizing a plant. We don’t want to overestimate the degree of conservation the city can achieve, and then end up with an inadequate sized treatment plant bc our predictions were not accurate…
[b][i]”rate and tariff restructuring…”
[/i][/b]
Again: the proposal, in general terms, is to charge higher rates to encourage water conservation. Is mandatory retrofit and mandatory conservation necessary for any of the West Sac options to pencil out?
“Because all of these opinions are from unnamed sources, it is impossible to gauge if any of it is credible… “
Why is that?
“I’m assuming the West Sac regional facility refers to the West Sac/Davis/Woodland alternative? “
I think that’s fairly clear.
“It is virtually impossibly to obtain 100% voluntary compliance.”
Because we don’t know that? All he’s showing is that the level of savings at the 100% level.
“I am still waiting to hear what confidence level the NRC has that its recommendations can be achieved.”
I don’t know what their confidence level is, but they looked like pretty reasonable proposals. And I would actually argue that 20% is probably conservative rather than optimistic.
[i]I would actually argue that 20% is probably conservative rather than optimistic.[/i]
Based on what?
[quote]I don’t know what their confidence level is, but they looked like pretty reasonable proposals. And I would actually argue that 20% is probably conservative rather than optimistic.[/quote]
If one is determining the size of the plant, either one has to be very sure that level of conservation can be achieved, or figure out some sort of public education program to obtain the necessary compliance. The city does not want to underestimate how much water is needed. And by the way, this issue was raised at the NRC itself. They made it clear they were not certain this level of conservation could be achieved…
[quote]erm: “Because all of these opinions are from unnamed sources, it is impossible to gauge if any of it is credible… ”
dmg: Why is that? [/quote]
I should think that is patently obvious… there is no way to verify who said the above statements and how credible/biased that person is…
“
Based on what? “
Alan’s analysis.
“there is no way to verify who said the above statements and how credible/biased that person is… “
You’ll just have to rely on my word that the people who told this were credible and they are people you would believe if they told you the same.
Re: Conservation –
Elaine is correct that 100% compliance will not be acheivable either by using voluntary measure and incentives as recommended by the NRC or even using mandatory compliance. That said, the NRC’s recommendations projected a possible savings of 2,700 ac-ft per year from a total use in 2011 of about 11,500 ac-ft per year (or 23% from 155 gal/capita/day (gpcd)).
I believe the city is only targeting a reduction to 134 gpcd when estimating their demand. That is only an 8.6% additional reduction from current usage. Thus, even if the City falls far short in realizing the savings from voluntary measures, a reduction to 134 gpcd is still easily acheivable.
Water demand is surprisingly inelastic. It takes major rate increases to achieve conservation.
Voluntary conservation requires multiple programs implemented aggressively over several years.
Davis has already achieved significant water use reduction, suggesting that many of the easier measures may have already been implemented.
A city with 50% rental population presents unique challenges. Finally, the last two years have been relatively low ET.
The question is when does mandatory conservation become necessary as a component of the West Sac options.
Whatever is submitted to the voters must include the following process and details:
1. Specific project, with well-described baseline features;
2. Specific rates;
3. EIR
4. Package submitted to the voters after full public consideration by the CC and relevant City Commissions; and
5. Be binding.
The highest cost is the huge plant that had those bogus water rate increases last September 6, for the Woodland Davis JPA Plant.
I would like to see credible studies of using Conaway Ranch and West Sacramento sources for a conjunctive water project.
“However, several sources have told the Vanguard that this may not be the case….Last week the Vanguard reported from several sources, hearing that some city staffers prefer the Woodland option despite possibilities of savings for the West Sacramento alternative.”
These sources are not credible. You should stop using these “several sources” until and unless you can confirmed their charges, opinions and other comments. You likely are being used to pass on gossip and mischievous misinformation. These weird people likely have an agenda.
Looking at Michael’s list . . .
1. Specific project, with well-described baseline features; [b]Not a problem. Will be there.[/b]
2. Specific rates; [b]Not a problem. Will be there.[/b]
3. EIR [b]The challenge with this is timing. Given that there already is a completed EIR in place for the Conaway Ranch location, that EIR is a piece of cake. Given that any EIR for the Bryte Bend plant was done years ago, that too is a piece of cake. Given that the EIR for the pipeline from West Sac location to Davis is simply a footprint EIR, waiting for the timeline that David has outlined in his article makes no sense to me. I’m not sure what “value-added” having an EIR in the voters package will add. So I’m inclined to pass on this one unless someone can explain why it is an incremental addition to the quality of each voter’s decision when they cast their vote. Michael, I’m all ears.[/b]
4. Package submitted to the voters after full public consideration by the CC and relevant City Commissions; and [b]Not a problem. Both CC and the WAC will have completed and documented their consideration. NRC has already weighed in. No other Commission has informed the WAC that they want to be involved.[/b]
5. Be binding. [b]This is a must.[/b]
[quote]Water demand is surprisingly inelastic…Davis has already achieved significant water use reduction, suggesting that many of the easier measures may have already been implemented…A city with 50% rental population presents unique challenges. Finally, the last two years have been relatively low ET. [b]- Don[/b][/quote]I absolutely agree. Given that Davis homeowners/ratepayers have had the specter of massive rate increases hanging over our heads for quite a while now, that has undoubtedly influenced many decisions about landscaping and plumbing fixtures, and has resulted in the adoption of many conservative practices already. Thus, to expect that Davis could achieve additional reductions from this point forward that are similar in magnitude to what other cities achieve at the beginning of conservation programs may be extremely optimistic and/or difficult.
[quote]The question is when does mandatory conservation become necessary as a component of the West Sac options.[/quote]How about we start with the question of [i][u]whether mandatory[/u][/i] conservation would be necessary as a component of any of the proposed programs.
David S: point taken. Mandatory conservation is not necessary with the WDJPA proposal. My question, then, is whether, and (if so) at what point mandatory conservation would be necessary with the West Sac options.
The West Sacramento/Davis project would be less expensive than the Davis/Woodland project even if we have to expand the West Sacramento intake. However, I don’t believe that we will, because West Sacramento has not yet begun to conserve — they haven’t even started metering yet (their residential usage is far,far higher than ours. If we don’t expand the intake, it will be much less expensive. We could probably end up paying a lesser amount now, while we are paying off the wastewater treatment plant, and entertain expansion in about 20 years when we have paid off the wastewater treatment plant.
This is a sensible idea whose time has come.
Davis Enterprise:
“Up to project delivery, not including operation and maintenance costs of the facilities, the estimated price tag of each option for the city of Davis breaks down as follows:
* Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (current project proposal): $139.9 million;
* West Sacramento Option 1 (regional facility shared by Davis, Woodland and UC Davis): $110.6 million;
* West Sacramento Option 2 (Davis only plus build-out to accommodate future demand): $140.6 million; and
* West Sacramento Option 3 (Davis only “reduced,” or delay of build-out): to be determined.
At its next meeting on Thursday, July 12, the Water Advisory Committee will hear the costs associated with the last option so it can compare the alternative to the others.”
[i]” West Sacramento has not yet begun to conserve “
[/i]
West Sacramento also projects significantly higher population growth over the next decades than Davis does.
[b]@Don Shor,[/b]
West Sacramento would have to grow hugely to make up for the future decline in their own use from conservation due to metering, and we are going to be cutting back on our useage as well due to continued conservation and replumbing our municipal landscraping directly to our intermediate wells. West Sacramento also plans to similarly replumb their municipal landscaping.
We also have a huge amount of flexibility concerning our mix of deep aquifer water and surface water. And remember — under term 91, we might not be allotted enough summer water to even use the existing West Sacramento capacity. This is a fact too often overlooked.
Hence, there will be a big decrease in usage between West Sacramento and Woodland for the foreseeable future. It would take an absolutely enormous amount of growth to require expansion, and if we had that much growth, the developers would probably pay for most of the expansion — that is what happens in other cities.
According to the report provided to West Sac by Carollo in Sept 2011, the city expects to grow by 82.4% between 2010 and 2035, from 48,000 up to a population of 87,402. That is based on West Sac’s 2009 General Plan.
We can wait to see how Carollo has updated this and the impact of that growth (or any new population figures that might more accurately reflect the current and projected economic conditions) in the report they give to the WAC next week.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b]
Projections are wishful thinking. The current council might want to double their population and their industry, but the market would have to be there, and there is no sign that it will be. Also, their own citizens will have a say in the matter. West Sacramento is attracting an increasing number of educated professionals, and these new citizens will be shaping the future West Sacramento agenda.
Regardless, it would be a number of years before expansion would have to be contemplated, and it could well be enough years for us to pay off our wastewater treatment plant.
If calculated correctly, the West Sac/Davis option is less expensive than the Woodland/Davis option even if we were to join in an initial expansion of the intake, and that is not likely to be necessary.
[quote]If calculated correctly, the West Sac/Davis option is less expensive than the Woodland/Davis option even if we were to join in an initial expansion of the intake, and that is not likely to be necessary. [/quote]
However, there may be significant downsides to the West Sac option – there are always trade-offs. For instance, it appears in the West Sac option Davis will be a customer not a partner; there will be no ozonation treatment; it is not a finalized project so it is much more iffy in terms of EIR, contingencies, what the final contract arrangement will look like, etc. So when you say the West Sac option is “less expensive”, it depends on how you look at that term “less expensive”. In the long term the West Sac option may not be “less expensive”. Unfortunately it is a risk/benefit/cost analysis with no surefire or cut and dried answers…
[quote]You’ll just have to rely on my word that the people who told this were credible and they are people you would believe if they told you the same.[/quote]
I’ll refer you to my quote and that of just saying:
[quote]erm: “there is no way to verify who said the above statements and how credible/biased that person is… ”
JustSaying: These sources are not credible. You should stop using these “several sources” until and unless you can confirmed their charges, opinions and other comments. You likely are being used to pass on gossip and mischievous misinformation. These weird people likely have an agenda.[/quote]
Who made the statements you are claiming were said very much depends on who said them as to whether they have any credibility. Secondly, hearsay is extremely unreliable. Secondhand hearsay is even more unreliable.
[quote]Re: Conservation –
Elaine is correct that 100% compliance will not be acheivable either by using voluntary measure and incentives as recommended by the NRC or even using mandatory compliance. That said, the NRC’s recommendations projected a possible savings of 2,700 ac-ft per year from a total use in 2011 of about 11,500 ac-ft per year (or 23% from 155 gal/capita/day (gpcd)).
I believe the city is only targeting a reduction to 134 gpcd when estimating their demand. That is only an 8.6% additional reduction from current usage. Thus, even if the City falls far short in realizing the savings from voluntary measures, a reduction to 134 gpcd is still easily acheivable.[/quote]
Thanks for this further explanation…