Saturday was a long and painful exercise in disconnect between the writer and his readers. I have to clearly take full responsibility, but I think people tend to read their own assumptions and beliefs into the material.
The strange part of yesterday’s discussion was that it focused on a portion of the commentary that was only setting the stage for the main point, rather than the main point itself.
The comment reads: “These alternatives have been under discussion for months and months. It’s a stretch of credibility that you’re still completely undecided about this.”
They continue: “If the voters will oppose any project that leads to a significant increase in water rates, and if doing nothing will also lead to a significant increase in water rates, then what do you personally propose?”
Let us be clear, I view the Vanguard as my job. I get up every morning at 4 a.m., I deliver a product to the public, by 8 a.m. on most days. I deal with my family and drive to an office and spend the rest of the day working – tracking down and following up on stories, raising money, or going to public meetings. I sometimes do not get home until late in the evening, which of course makes for a long day.
In general, I do not view it as my job to make personal proposals for policy. People can certainly find examples where that occurs, but that is not the best use of time, from my perspective. Instead, I view my job as laying out implications for public policy, exposing wrongdoing if it exists, exposing problems with the policy if they exist, and providing a place where the community can come together and talk about local issues.
On Thursday night, we saw the WAC address some key concerns that the Vanguard has been raising. Specifically, the issue of rate spiking, the issue of consensus, and the idea of keeping the West Sacramento option on the table.
In the scheme of this policy, these are in fact peripheral issues. But that has been our focus all along. We thought the rates implemented on September 7 were problematic. We believed the project at 20 mgd was too large and, more importantly, too expensive, and eventually changes have occurred that we believe will result in a better project.
So what does the Vanguard prefer?
The Vanguard has no preference between West Sacramento and Woodland other than to keep both options on the table.
Why does the Vanguard want to see both options remain on the table? Because that is the best way to reduce both the costs and the impacts on ratepayers. Those two issues are somewhat different. As we note, it would be cheapest to simply outright buy the car, but issues of affordability force many to take out a loan and make incremental payments that are affordable, even though that option raises the overall costs of the purchase.
Some have suggested why not wait until the WAC completes their job before offering commentary and criticism. The problem with that view, aside from the free speech implications, is that it does not give the opportunity to help focus the public and members on critical issues that will help shape the direction of the policies.
Despite the difficulty, we believe that an open democratic process is that best way to address issues that arise and shape the course of debate and discussion.
As one reader suggested: “I believe most of the citizens of Davis are willing to let their elected officials make these complicated decisions on our behalf. That is why we elected them in the first place after all.”
“In this case what our elected officials decided was a pretty good solution (not perfect by any means) that addressed all the issues with water that we were facing. Had nothing changed we would be on our way to having a secure source of high quality water at a reasonable cost (reasonable: similar in cost to that found in surrounding communities) in perpetuity. We even had the required 218 process that approved the rate increases,” the reader continued.
“The end result was the WAC process that has given us a ‘best option’ that is essentially just a smaller version of the original plan, and a ‘secondary option’ that is no cheaper, contains much more risk, and only addresses the problem for a finite period of time, leaving solving the problem to future generations,” the reader continued. “In the process we have reneged on our agreements, insulted the citizens and civic leaders of our neighboring communities, and returned to the era of politics of divisive personal attacks that we were all so happy to put behind us just a few years ago. Now on top of all that, we expect others (the citizens of West Sac or Woodland) to help pay the higher costs brought about from our dithering.”
I could not disagree more here. I think we are better off with a smaller, cheaper and more affordable project. I understand that this particular reader was happy with the 20 mgd project and probably fairly able to pay the rates. Others disagree with the size and may have more difficulty affording the rates.
In the end, I think we end up with a better project for this discussion. I am simply not at the point where I am willing to take the foot off the pedal and take what we have on the table.
I still think this project can be done cheaper, more affordably, more innovatively, and be more affordable for the average ratepayer.
So you ask if I have a preference between West Sacramento and Woodland, I will say, I do not. If you ask whether I have concerns about the JPA, I will say that I do. If you ask if I believe that West Sacramento is the better alternative, I will say I do not necessarily believe that.
If you ask if I think the lack of ownership in the West Sacramento project is a deal breaker, I’ll say no. It depends on what agreement we can reach. If we can get something similar to the city of Tracy, then it might be worthwhile. If we have to pay for upgrades in 20 years, it might not be.
And I will say my positions are never static, they change over time and they change depending on the information that is available. Some people like to throw up past articles and show contradictions in what I say now versus then. The problem with that approach is it assumes that my thought process was the same then as now.
There was a time when I was opposed in concept to the project, but that has long ceased to be the case. Now my main focus is on cost, on saving the ratepayers money and forcing us to get the best possible deal.
There are other considerations, as well, that need to be taken into account. We will be discussing those shortly.
In the meantime, I hope that clears things up.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
vanguard: “Some have suggested why not wait until the WAC completes their job before offering commentary and criticism.”
haha nice straw man argument. the primary concern is not the vanguard is “offering commentary and criticism” prematurely. The problem is the vanguard’s “commentary and criticism” has been unfair and unreasonable, and is not “commentary and criticism” but baseless character assassinations. look no further than the blanket accusation that the committee is being driven and led around by staff.
The Vanguard has no preference between West Sacramento and Woodland other than to keep both options on the table.
oh, bull. “we want to keep both options on the table indefinitely” has the effect of delay indefinitely. the language just sounds nicer.
“Despite the difficulty, we believe that an open democratic process is that best way to address issues that arise and shape the course of debate and discussion.”
first of all, to a certain extent, the delay forces have largely tied things up to prevent discussion and debate.
if we look on the committee, mark seigler appears to be doing the lion’s share of the talking, almost non-stop.
in public discussion, Harrington/Sue tries to takeover the meeing by filibustering.
then we have the accusations:
1. Seigler’s accusation against West Yost.
2. The vanguard’s accusations agaisnt the committee and staff.
3. Harringtons threats against committee members if they side with woodland.
this is not for “discussion and debate” this is to shut the debate down, so a decision in favor of woodland cannot be made.
Their tactics are not democratic. They are totalitarian. They are “it’s my way or else.”
[quote]Some have suggested why not wait until the WAC completes their job before offering commentary and criticism…
Despite the difficulty, we believe that an open democratic process is that best way to address issues that arise and shape the course of debate and discussion.[/quote]
When commentary is misleading and criticism is unwarranted, then there is a problem. A democratic process is most definitely the best way, but dirty tactics are not democratic. A sense of fair play needs to be the order of the day…
[quote]The Vanguard has no preference between West Sacramento and Woodland other than to keep both options on the table.[/quote]
For how long?
[quote]I still think this project can be done cheaper, more affordably, more innovatively, and be more affordable for the average ratepayer.[/quote]
How can it be done cheaper; more innovatively; more affordably? What exactly did you have in mind? How much cheaper must it be before it is acceptable? What innovations are you referring to, bc innovations actually make the project more expensive, e.g. rainwater cachement, ASR, etc. How do we make the project more affordable, when we keep delaying raising rates, so that no matter what we do, there are going to be steep rate increases to make up for the lack of raising rates/funding for existing infrastructure let alone a new project?
[quote]Some people like to throw up past articles and show contradictions in what I say now versus then. The problem with that approach is it assumes that my thought process was the same then as now.[/quote]
I can understand what you are trying to say here – that minds can change as more evidence comes in. That’s perfectly fine. Or if you just had a long time to think about it, and have changed your mind. However that doesn’t explain situations where the positions are conveniently contradictory depending on the article or issue and there has been no new evidence/information/thinking going on. Or to put it another way, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. People need to be even-handed and fair minded when arguing a point, not cherry pick evidence, not resort to personal attacks when they can’t argue a point from logic, not sling mud and hope something sticks, not throw out all sorts of innuendo with nothing to back it up, etc.
“For how long? “
We’ll see.
“How much cheaper must it be before it is acceptable?”
I would suggest you are approaching this in the wrong way. Your response here suggests you think it is fine as is and you want trying to find the minimum form of acceptability to others. Instead, I would suggest that correct question for you to ask is whether you have done all that is reasonably possible to make this project as affordable as possible for as many people as possible. Until your answer is yes, then you know the answer to this.
“However that doesn’t explain situations where the positions are conveniently contradictory depending on the article or issue and there has been no new evidence/information/thinking going on. “
I’m going to need an example and maybe I can remember my thinking at the time.
[i]”I still think this project can be done cheaper, more affordably, more innovatively, and be more affordable for the average ratepayer.”
[/i]
“[i]Instead, I would suggest that correct question for you to ask is whether you have done all that is reasonably possible to make this project as affordable as possible for as many people as possible.”[/i]
Affordable when, and for which people?
As far as I know, there are only a few things that can be done to reduce the cost of the project. Reduce capacity. Spread out the payments. Each of those involves tradeoffs against the future cost to Davis residents. Almost everything you and others want to do to make the project more palatable to current-day voters will end up costing future Davis residents more overall.
Don, the motion passed by the WAC identified two specific areas where the WAC believes further reduction of the cost of the project can be achieved.
First, “That both cities share in the cost of the pipelines to convey the treated water to the city limits of each city” Based on the spreadsheets provided by Bartle Wells, the line item for “Davis Treated Water Pipeline” has a raw cost of $19,107,500 and a combined cost contingency of $4,776,875 for a total cost of $23,884,375.007. 50% of that amount would be just shy of $12 million, but would need to be netted down by 50% of Woodland’s Treated Water Pipeline costs.
Second, “That the cost share percentages of the entire project change to reflect the current anticipated reliance on the treatment facility” which is 60/40 based on the adjusted 18/12 apportionment of the 30 mgd total capacity. Based on the spreadsheets provided by Bartle Wells, the total of the line items other than “Davis Treated Water Pipeline” and “Local Facility Costs” when adjusted to a 60/40 split that amount would be approximately $19 million. St the total potential savings still to be pursued is in the vicinity of $31 million without changing the plant size at all.
Matt: your first item is “get Woodland to pay more.” So, once again, the cost is being shifted — although this time to the supposedly willing ratepayers of Woodland. Good luck with that.
Second is just a variation of ‘reduce capacity’; i.e., Davis takes less of the planned capacity, thus pays for less.
I have serious reservations about Davis locking in capacity that is equal to our current usage. As noted on yesterday’s thread: where will the water for 5000 more students come from?
Don, it is also worth noting that based on the Bartle Wells spreadsheets, Woodland’s cost for the plant has come down something like $40 million in part as a result of the WAC deliberations.
Don Shor said . . .
“Matt: your first item is “get Woodland to pay more.” So, once again, the cost is being shifted — although this time to the supposedly willing ratepayers of Woodland. Good luck with that.”
As you can see from my post above, not shifted. If Woodland agrees to the full $31 million reapportionment of costs they are still $9 million ahead of where they were when the larger plant was on the table.
Don Shor said . . .
“Second is just a variation of ‘reduce capacity’; i.e., Davis takes less of the planned capacity, thus pays for less.”
Woodland is taking less as well . . . down from 21.6 mgd to 18 mgd
Don Shor said . . .
“I have serious reservations about Davis locking in capacity that is equal to our current usage. As noted on yesterday’s thread: where will the water for 5000 more students come from?”
Don, the difference between 0.5% growth and 1% growth for the non-student portions of Davis provides for the 5,000 student growth by 2030.
The Chancellor’s statement in 2011 indicated that the 5000 students would be added within a decade; i.e., by about 2020. Thus your growth rate has no room for any residential growth whatsoever in addition to that. Somebody probably should send a memo to ConAgra. Or maybe that’s the goal.
[i]”If Woodland agrees to the full $31 million reapportionment of costs they are still $9 million ahead of where they were when the larger plant was on the table.”
[/i]
I’m guessing they’ll be looking at the change in percentages rather than dollars. But the Joint Powers agreement provides for that, so long as they agree.
The Chancellor’s goals on growth make it a bit disengenuous that the university not be more a part of the water project.
The university has provided for its own water needs by purchasing water from Solano, by means of their (priority) use of the deep wells, and by assuming they will be customers of the city of Davis when the Woodland-Davis project comes on line.
Even with all of that, I believe the goal of UC campuses is to provide housing for 40%, and UCD falls short. Regardless, if they achieved the 40% housing for the 5000 student increase (unlikely), there’s still 3000 new students to provide housing and water for.
Matt’s assumption is that water conservation will balance housing growth, so that Davis doesn’t need to plan for any increase in water usage. I believe that with the university as the dominant factor in housing growth locally, we need to plan for what the university is going to do.
Don Shor
08/19/12 – 07:53 PM
…
[i]”The Chancellor’s statement in 2011 indicated that the 5000 students would be added within a decade; i.e., by about 2020. Thus your growth rate has no room for any residential growth whatsoever in addition to that. Somebody probably should send a memo to ConAgra. Or maybe that’s the goal.”[/i]
Not true Don. If we build a 12 mgd plant (Davis share) the overall firm system capacity to meet peak hour demand @ 134 gpcd will support a population of 86,795 which is projected to occur in 2040 if you assume 0.5% growth for the next five years and 1% growth from year six onward. If you reduce that “non-Chancellor” population by 5,000 then the overall firm system capacity is good until 2034 rather than 2040. If you assume that after 2020 the 134 gpcd will further improve by 0.5% per year that would reduce our gpcd down step-wise to 120 by the year 2046, and move the 2034 and 2040 dates out to 2050 and 2060 respectively.
Bottom-line, a 12 mgd plant puts us into a solid position to handle anything the Chancellor throws at us.
David:
Did you learn how to attribute quotes at the same journalism school where you learned the appropriate way to work with anonymous sources?
Yes, I am being factitious, deal with it. In the future however if you choose to quote me I expect you to attribute the quote by name. I sign my name to everything I write here and I expect you to quote me by name or not at all.
[i]”the overall firm system capacity to meet peak hour demand @ 134 gpcd”
[/i]
Our current usage is 12.4 million gallons per day divided by 66,000 residents. That is present usage of 185 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). You are counting on a 28% per capita reduction in water use?
My point is that we are barely building the Woodland Davis project to capacity. It was scaled back to save money. That increases the likelihood that Davis residents will have to rely at times on the well water, which is poorer quality. So to suggest that it is a better project because it is smaller is a stretch. It’s cheaper because it’s smaller. But it isn’t really better.
Don Shor: “[i]It’s cheaper because it’s smaller. But it isn’t really better.[/i]”
That has been my point for some time. Just because it is cheaper doesn’t mean it is better. When you add 2-3 years of delay and passing more and more of the costs on to our kids, I just don’t see how the great ‘pause’ was in any way a benefit.
Don Shor said . . .
“Our current usage is 12.4 million gallons per day divided by 66,000 residents. That is present usage of 185 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). You are counting on a 28% per capita reduction in water use?”
Don, the statistics Dianna Jensen is using have our current water system population as 67,005 (65,622 + 288 + 1,095 = Davis + Willowbank + El Macero), together with a 2011per capita consumption value of 152 gpcd (a number confirmed in recent Natural Resources Commission minutes). Extending out those numbers gives us an average gpd of 10,184,760, a max gpd of 18,332,568 and a peak gpd of 32,998,622. The NRC has set a target of 134 gpcd by 2020, which for simplicity works out to 2 gpcd per year starting in 2012. Since our most recent ten annual gpcd declines have been 6, 11, 20, 8, -3, 2, 9, -6, 8 and zero, for a cumulative decline of 55 gpcd from 207 to 152, getting to 134 by 2020 should not be difficult, especially if we implement an AB 2882 compliant rate structure.
Hope that helps.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”My point is that we are barely building the Woodland Davis project to capacity. It was scaled back to save money. That increases the likelihood that Davis residents will have to rely at times on the well water, which is poorer quality. So to suggest that it is a better project because it is smaller is a stretch. It’s cheaper because it’s smaller. But it isn’t really better.”[/i]
If your expectation was that our system was going to be a surface water system with well water only acting as a reserve, then your point is spot on. However, the WAC’s unanimous decision was/is to go to a conjunctive use system of deep aquifer well water together with surface water. The only usage of intermediate aquifer well water after October 2018 will be for irrigation purposes, and that being almost exclusively for the landscapes of parks and schools. What aspects of deep aquifer well water do you feel are poorer quality?
[i]What aspects of deep aquifer well water do you feel are poorer quality?[/i]
You can’t be serious.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”That has been my point for some time. Just because it is cheaper doesn’t mean it is better. When you add 2-3 years of delay and passing more and more of the costs on to our kids, I just don’t see how the great ‘pause’ was in any way a benefit.”[/i]
Mark, based on the spreadsheets that Bartle Wells has given the WAC in recent weeks, 1) the 30 mgd plant (18 Woodland and 12 Davis) will cost Davis $131 million and the 40 mgd plant (22 Woodland and 18 Davis) will cost $185 million. and 2) the annual Debt Service for the 30 mgd plant is $8,711,000 until FY 24/25 and then $9,717,000 thereafter. In effect the the $54 million saved prepays between 5 and 6 years of you kids’ obligation for the plant. If we are able to further reduce the total Davis cost by the $31 million identified in the WAC motion sent to Council, your kids will have another 3-4 years prepaid as well.
With that said, if we as a community choose the “no project” option, then your kids are going to be the ones holding the bag for all the risks of future non-compliance. That to me would be a travesty. I firmly believe we need to do a surface water project so that our community can move to a conjunctive use system, but I want it to be the right project . . . and I think we are very close to being there.
Matt: Your assumption is that you have correctly accounted for the water needs 10-20 years out. Perhaps you have, but Davis doesn’t have a good track record on that regard (can you say Berryessa?). If you are wrong, the costs to our kids will be much higher. Further, if we dither for another 5-10 years waiting for the West Sac option to mature, we will have completely failed our children in my opinion.
Don Shor said . . .
“You can’t be serious.”
Absolutely. The deep aquifer only. Not the intermediate or shallow aquifer.
Don, from the 7/25/2012 Staff report from Michael Lindquist . . .
[i]”Compliance with dissolved constituents is best accomplished with changes to source water quality and not to attempt to remove the constituents at the wastewater plant. The constituents of concern are:
• Total dissolved solids (as measured by electro-conductivity)
• Boron
• Selenium
Boron was not analyzed because proposed new sources have essentially zero boron. The deep well concentrations rarely exceed 900 mg/L. The lowest anticipated wastewater effluent limit will be 700 mg/L. Even if only one-third of supply is surface water, the boron limit could be met.
Selenium was not analyzed for similar reasons. Deep wells have a concentration lower than 3 mg/L – lower than any anticipated limits. Any surface water lowers concentrations; therefore, no analysis was conducted.
Future limits for electro-conductivity (EC) are unknown at this time, but will very likely range from absolute low of 700 micro-ohms/cm to a high of 1300 micro-ohms/cm. The limits may be an annual, seasonal, or monthly average.”[/i]
As Michael points out the key to achieving 700 micro-ohms/cm is getting Davis residents to stop using their self-regenerating water softeners. At 12 mgd of surface water the blend of deep aquifer and surface water will be soft enough to make 90% elimination of water softeners as a reasonable goal.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Matt: Your assumption is that you have correctly accounted for the water needs 10-20 years out. Perhaps you have, but Davis doesn’t have a good track record on that regard (can you say Berryessa?). If you are wrong, the costs to our kids will be much higher.[b] Further, if we dither for another 5-10 years waiting for the West Sac option to mature[/b], we will have completely failed our children in my opinion.”[/i]
Mark, your bolded words are exactly why the language of the WAC’s motion approved Thursday night was as follows:
“Direct staff to make a proposal to West Sacramento to provide a hook-up fee to the City of Davis that does not exceed $6,000,000 and provides the processing of 12 mgd per day for 30 years and a 30 year renewal option, at a fixed processing rate. The proposal should provide for Davis to provide upgrades that it desires. [b]Negotiations should be finalized within 60 days of the City Council approval of this motion.[/b]”
60 days doesn’t fall into the category of dithering IMHO.
[i]Boron was not analyzed because proposed new sources have essentially zero boron.[/i]
This is likely to confuse people. The “new sources” are the surface water. The deep wells have higher boron than the intermediate wells, as well as higher pH. The main purpose in going to the deeper wells was the lower selenium. They also have lower nitrate. I’d have to look up chromium and arsenic.
Conjunctive use means using both surface and groundwater supplies. But for reasons of quality and reducing risk to the deep aquifer, Davis should minimize use of the wells once the surface water comes on line.
Water rates should have been increasing for years… we’re playing “catch-up”… the costs of maintaining/replacing existing wells, and dealing with discharge requirements on the sanitary sewer and or storm drainage side will, from my perspective, dwarf the costs of the surface water project, big time.
Matt: “60 days doesn’t fall into the category of dithering IMHO.”
It will be 5-6 years before you have approved water rights (my assumption), either thorugh transfer of removal, or transfer of use. You won’t know if the West Sac option even is viable until those changes in rights are approved. The 60 day limit is meaningless in that regard.
The point you are making Mark is solid, although my crystal ball tells me something less than 5-6 years.
The key component of time will be from now until the deadline for filing protests/objections to 1) the pipeline EIR, 2) West Sac’s application to expand the Place of Service of its two water rights/contracts, and 3) Davis’ application to add a second point of diversion at Bryte Bend to its two water rights. Once the protest/objection filing date is past, the risks associated with the actual protests filed will be much more easily quantifiable and a specific plan for incremental progress can be drawn up.
Getting 2) done should be the quickest of those three steps, and I would hope that West Sac would start that application process now. There really isn’t any downside to expanding their place of service to include Davis.
And if West Sac doesn’t begin the process in 60 days? My understanding was that Dennis Diemer said a decision regarding the Woodland project needed to be made by mid-October.
Don, I think you know the answer to that question.
No partner, no dance.
[quote]erm: “For how long? ”
dmg: We’ll see.
erm: “How much cheaper must it be before it is acceptable?”
dmg: I would suggest you are approaching this in the wrong way. Your response here suggests you think it is fine as is and you want trying to find the minimum form of acceptability to others. Instead, I would suggest that correct question for you to ask is whether you have done all that is reasonably possible to make this project as affordable as possible for as many people as possible. Until your answer is yes, then you know the answer to this.[/quote]
You are totally/conveniently dodging the issues, which makes it appear you are in favor of indefinite delay (which may not be the case – but it has the appearance of it). When has the WAC “done all that is reasonably possible to make this project as affordable as possible for as many people as possible”?
[quote]don shor: My point is that we are barely building the Woodland Davis project to capacity. It was scaled back to save money. That increases the likelihood that Davis residents will have to rely at times on the well water, which is poorer quality. So to suggest that it is a better project because it is smaller is a stretch. It’s cheaper because it’s smaller. But it isn’t really better.[/quote]
I understand your concerns. But we heard from an expert in Tracy who strongly advised to build as much as you can afford, but only what you can afford. And that is not an easy thing to determine… it is a trade-off… I’m just curious. Do you believe that both Woodland and Davis could really have afforded the Woodland project as proposed?
[quote]Matt Williams: What aspects of deep aquifer well water do you feel are poorer quality?
Don Shor: You can’t be serious.[/quote]
The bottom line here is that by mixing well water with surface water, the water quality is going to be considerably better and less hard than what we have now.
[quote]Don Shor: Conjunctive use means using both surface and groundwater supplies. But for reasons of quality and reducing risk to the deep aquifer, Davis should minimize use of the wells once the surface water comes on line.[/quote]
The city is not going to be able to use surface water much if at all in the summer (term 91 limits), especially in times of drought. We have to rely on well water during the summmer months. Hence the need for a conjunctive use project. Even at that, I believe there is going to always be a mix of surface water and well water (some report had the percentages, I’d have to look and don’t have the time right now).
That’s a perfect example Elaine of jumping to conclusions. I am dodging the issue because I don’t know the precise answer as to how long we should delay but you have concluded from that that I must favor indefinite delay or that at I least I might favor that…
[quote]hpierce: Water rates should have been increasing for years… we’re playing “catch-up”… the costs of maintaining/replacing existing wells, and dealing with discharge requirements on the sanitary sewer and or storm drainage side will, from my perspective, dwarf the costs of the surface water project, big time.[/quote]
Truer words were never spoken! We have talked about this a number of times at the WAC meetings – the need to start ramping up rates NOW… regardless of which project is chosen…
[quote]That’s a perfect example Elaine of jumping to conclusions. I am dodging the issue because I don’t know the precise answer as to how long we should delay but you have concluded from that that I must favor indefinite delay or that at I least I might favor that…[/quote]
It makes no sense to say we need to “[do] all that is reasonably possible to make this project as affordable as possible for as many people as possible” and then refuse to give any time parameters, which indicates a willingness to dither forever trying to answer the question. At some point, the city has to fish or cut bait – if nothing else bc Woodland will go it alone and take that choice off the table. If it is not the case, then you should be able to give some type of time parameter if indefinite delay is not your goal…
[quote]Mark West: Matt: “60 days doesn’t fall into the category of dithering IMHO.”
It will be 5-6 years before you have approved water rights (my assumption), either thorugh transfer of removal, or transfer of use. You won’t know if the West Sac option even is viable until those changes in rights are approved. The 60 day limit is meaningless in that regard.
Matt Williams: The point you are making Mark is solid, although my crystal ball tells me something less than 5-6 years. [/quote]
First of all, no one has a crystal ball – and in listening to the experts I believe their estimate of 4-6 years for the West Sac permitting and CEQA/EIR review sounds quite reasonable. In fact, it could be longer if there are protest problems. Secondly, the 60 day time limit is definitely problematic if West Sac were to accept our terms. I believe that very well might put the WAC right back to square one, in deciding which alternative is best? The problems with the West Sac alternative do not go away, even tho it would be a significantly cheaper alternative – cheaper by another $6 million (the connection fee would have been halved), which in the scheme of monthly payments is probably less than $5/mo. It is most certainly a conundrum…
Elaine: I agree at some point the city has to make the decision. Part of what I hope is that the city can do everything in its power to keep options on the table until that point happens.
Elaine: “[i]I believe their estimate of 4-6 years for the West Sac permitting and CEQA/EIR review sounds quite reasonable. In fact, it could be longer if there are protest problems.[/i]”
With the increasing problems with water throughout the State, I think you can almost guarantee that there will be protests against the needed changes to the water rights whether we are talking about moving Davis’ point of removal or West Sac’s point of use. I believe the risk associated with either of these requests is much greater than is being considered and several years of delay should be expected.
Even if we are successful with the water rights issues, there will still be the CEQA/EIR review for the project and here I think you will see numerous protests/complaints, some of which will come from some concerned citizens of Davis. This will result in more delay and greater expense, and carries with it significant risk.
As a consequence of both of these issues, it will be several years before we can even know if the West Sacramento option is viable, let alone start construction. If we drop the Woodland project to pursue the West Sac one, what are our options when we learn 5 years out that West Sac can’t work?
I think pursuing a West Sacramento option, with all the inherent risk associated with it, and in doing so, giving up on a approved project with all the water rights and a completed EIR/CEQA in place is just plain stupid.
“I think pursuing a West Sacramento option, with all the inherent risk associated with it, and in doing so, giving up on a approved project with all the water rights and a completed EIR/CEQA in place is just plain stupid.”
Ok. But do you think that pursuing both options and trying to reduce costs as much as possible is also just plain stupid?
David: “Ok. But do you think that pursuing both options and trying to reduce costs as much as possible is also just plain stupid?”
How much money are you willing to spend to save yourself $5 a month?
West Sac is not an option which Woodland can see full well. Continuing the nonsense doesn’t give us any more leverage. Negotiate the downsized project with Woodland openly, get the best deal we can and move on. Any time or money spent on the West Sac non-option from this point on is completely wasted. It is time to stop playing games and move on to the next problem.
How can we “pursue both options” if we commit to the Woodland project in mid-October? The window for Woodland is closing.
Don: I’d say mid-October is two months from now. And there additional things that can probably extend that time. I’d also suggest you have to pass the ballot initiative.
Mark: “West Sac is not an option which Woodland can see full well.”
Right now it’s not an option because it has not been explored enough. It could become an option, it might stay not an option.
“How much money are you willing to spend to save yourself $5 a month? “
How do we know it’s $5 and what money are you referring to?
David: “Right now it’s not an option because it has not been explored enough. It could become an option, it might stay not an option.”
No, we have explored it more than enough to know that it is not a viable option, unless your goal is to never have a surface water project.
West Sac probably was the best option 5-10 years ago, especially if it had been pursued as a regional solution for Woodland, Davis and West Sac. Unfortunately that didn’t happen. We can point fingers and scream ‘it’s not fair’ all we want but it won’t change the fact that today, West Sac is not a viable option for solving the problems we have today. We are simply dithering.
We have already solved the water problem. It is time to move on to the next issue on the list and get the solution implemented.
Time is a resource and all the time that is spent dithering (i.e. ‘beating a dead horse’) is lost to us since we could have that resource solving other more critical problems.
David, there is no change to the water project that you or anyone else can point to that will save you more than $5 or so per month. That is the best you can hope for.
[quote]dmg: Elaine: I agree at some point the city has to make the decision. Part of what I hope is that the city can do everything in its power to keep options on the table until that point happens.[/quote]
But when is that point for you? You still won’t answer the question… and it is a crucial question. Do we delay indefinitely or fish or cut bait very soon?
[quote]mark west:Even if we are successful with the water rights issues, there will still be the CEQA/EIR review for the project and here I think you will see numerous protests/complaints, some of which will come from some concerned citizens of Davis. This will result in more delay and greater expense, and carries with it significant risk.
As a consequence of both of these issues, it will be several years before we can even know if the West Sacramento option is viable, let alone start construction. If we drop the Woodland project to pursue the West Sac one, what are our options when we learn 5 years out that West Sac can’t work? [/quote]
Yes, I agree the West Sac option carries significant risk – and from what the experts say, the risk is not that we will not obtain the necessary permits, but that they will be severely restricted. In other words, the West Sac option carries with it the risk that our options for water in the future may be severely restricted. I think your second observation is spot on…
[quote]dmg: Ok. But do you think that pursuing both options and trying to reduce costs as much as possible is also just plain stupid?[/quote]
If we dither too long, there won’t be two options, but only one! As Don Shor notes: “How can we “pursue both options” if we commit to the Woodland project in mid-October? The window for Woodland is closing.”
[quote]dmg: Don: I’d say mid-October is two months from now. And there additional things that can probably extend that time. I’d also suggest you have to pass the ballot initiative.[/quote]
What “additional things” can be done to extent that time? I would also argue that putting out misinformation is what will cause any failure of the ballot initiative, not so much which project is chosen since the cost to the ratepayer is about the same for either one…
[quote]mark west: Time is a resource and all the time that is spent dithering (i.e. ‘beating a dead horse’) is lost to us since we could have that resource solving other more critical problems. [/quote]
And I would also argue too much more dithering now will make either project more costly…