Over the past year, we have heard a lot about the water project, particularly from the Davis representatives on the JPA – Joe Krovoza and, formerly, Stephen Souza. But with Mr. Souza’s exit from the council June, Brett Lee has been named to replace him.
In a recent op-ed, he lays out his view on where the city stands on the water issue, ahead of a ballot measure that the city council will soon be finalizing that “will identify the city’s preferred water project and will identify the proposed rate structure and rates that will be put in place to support the added cost of the water project.”
“The good news is that any project the council recommends will be placed before the voters,” he writes, echoing his view from both last fall’s referendum and recent council elections. “I believe the choice to embark on the city’s largest municipal project to date (in terms of size and cost) that essentially will double the long-term debt of our community should be placed before the voters. This is as it should be – we, as an entire community, should decide this.”
He adds, “More good news is that the project chosen for the ballot will be for a lower-cost proposal than was first selected last year.”
That is largely due to the reduced size of the project.
Councilember Lee writes, “The original project would have provided 18 million gallons of water a day for Davis. A closer examination of the numbers has indicated that 12 million gallons a day will be sufficient for the foreseeable future, so the initial project size has been scaled down. This reduction in size has resulted in significant cost savings. Depending on the project chosen, savings are in the neighborhood of $10 million.”
He also believes that we have an improved rate structure, “as compared to our current two-tier rate system. An improved rate system will better be able to equitably allocate costs while encouraging conservation.”
That is the good news.
At the same time, he echoes the concerns of the mayor and others like the Vanguard that the previous councils left us in a less than ideal situation, especially with regard to the financial planning of this project.
“Without casting blame, I must admit I truly lament that the councils that preceded us did not have the foresight to better financially plan for this project,” Councilmember Lee respectfully writes. “We have been told that accessing surface water has been in the works ‘for the past 20 years.’ If that has been so, why have we not put any money aside for this very expensive project?”
This is a critical question which, among many others problems, explains why we are currently up against the gun.
Councilmember Lee continues, “Ten years ago, we could have begun earmarking funds so we could have avoided the very real and steep rate increases we are likely to see in the coming years. We easily could have reduced the borrowing required for the project and we could have spread the costs over 40 years instead of 30.”
“I must also question why we as a city have not been actively pursuing simple water conservation measures that would have allowed us to even further reduce the cost of any proposed project,” Councilmember Brett Lee adds, noting, “The Natural Resources Commission has calculated that we as community can further reduce our present water consumption in the neighborhood of 20 percent per person without significant lifestyle changes or major expenditures.”
The Vanguard has also been critical of past councils for the lack of effective outreach on the issue, the belated creation of a Water Advisory Committee, and the lack of a rate study.
Councilmember Brett Lee focuses on the next steps.
“Councilmembers Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk will be meeting with Woodland City Council members. They will try to negotiate a more equitable sharing of costs to join the Woodland-Davis Joint Powers Authority project,” he writes.
He adds, “Concurrently, Mayor Joe Kravoza and I will be negotiating with West Sacramento to try to lower the cost of joining its water system. In the meantime, Councilman Lucas Frerichs will continue to be actively engaged in studying the rate structure proposals that have been presented thus far.”
These negotiations, he argues, could end up further reducing costs which, even if that is a five percent reduction, would result in “very real and significant savings for our community.”
He concludes, “Once we have a better sense of the costs of joining the Woodland project and the costs of joining the West Sacramento system, we as a council, with the important advice from the Water Advisory Committee, will make our final recommendation for the project to place before the voters.”
Brett Lee also clarified his position on the project alternatives in a comment on Tuesday on the Vanguard.
He explained that while he and the Mayor had attempted to meet with West Sacramento officials, they were reluctant to do so prior to receiving written documentation from Davis.
“I can tell you unequivocally, that when I speak with West Sac, my goal is to obtain the best possible deal for the people of Davis,” he wrote. “My job in these negotiations has nothing to do with Woodland, the JPA, DBO, or anything else – I am focused on working with West Sac to obtain the best deal for our community.”
He added, “I am not wedded to either the Woodland or West Sac project. I have not made up my mind. The Woodland option is more expensive but has fewer regulatory hurdles. West Sac is less expensive, but has some additional regulatory risk, and does not ultimately lead to ownership of the facilities.”
He noted that it would be unfortunate for Woodland if the City of Davis did not continue its partnership, but reminded readers, “My duty is to recommend the project that I think is best for the people of Davis. Just as the Woodland council members’ duty is to recommend the best project for their own community.”
“It will ultimately come down to cost, and currently the costs are unknown because we have not completed the negotiations with both parties. Both potential water projects partners are still in the running,” he added.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How recent was this “recent OP-ED”? Brett’s “postion” offered in today”s Vanguard is distrubingly circumspect and offers no idea of his position as the reported deadline for decision-making approaches with no apparent real effort to indicate to West Sacramento that Davis IS serious about purchasing water from them. Nancy’s observation that the Mayor is out of the country at this time(I remember coincidental “out-of-the-country” trips by members of the Saylor Council majority during periods when the political climate was becoming uncomfortably hot) should not go unnoticed.
This came out today or yesterday.
BTW, I just added additional comments (Last six paragraphs) that he posted on the Vanguard and sent to me, I think this clarifies his positions and they were made in response to Nancy’s comments.
I too wonder at the date of this. The title is somewhat misleading!
I am particularly concerned with the future tenses of “will” be negotiating for both groups. What is the progress to date and timeline?
David wrote:
> with Mr. Souza’s exit from the council June,
> Brett Lee has been named to replace him
Did Brett actually replace Stephen (Did the city council assign him to Stephen’s seat rather than Sue’s seat)?
Then Brett wrote:
> “Without casting blame, I must admit I truly
> lament that the councils that preceded us did
> not have the foresight to better financially
> plan for this project,” Councilmember Lee
> respectfully writes. “We have been told that
> accessing surface water has been in the works
> for the past 20 years.’ If that has been so,
> why have we not put any money aside for this
> very expensive project?”
I think that Brett (and others) needs to cast some blame… You don’t need to be a CPA or an actuary to know that a water system, road or school will not last forever and that it is important to budget for (and actually set aside) reserves every year. Our current system of paying out all revenue in above average wages to (politically connected) workers and above average contracts (to politically connected) contractors and then going to voters to ask them to approve a huge bond issue because of the “unexpected” capital needs for the water system, roads or schools needs to end.
IMHO, the only way that Davis staff and Council Majority will begin seriously seeking a West Sacramento option is when they are FORCED to do so by a majority NO vote in a citizen-initiated referendum on the proposed JPA plan.
I apologize for confusion:
“Brett Lee has been named to replace him” was referring to the JPA not the council.
As I stated in my comment, the op-ed is from yesterday or today. The comments at the end from yesterday.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”IMHO, the only way that Davis staff and Council Majority will begin seriously seeking a West Sacramento option is when they are FORCED to do so by a majority NO vote in a citizen-initiated referendum on the proposed JPA plan.”[/i]
davisite, two questions . . . 1) what makes you think that West Sac does not see Davis as seriously seeking a West Sacramento option? 2) If you were West Sac, what business terms would you be looking for that would make a serious offer worth considering?
I ask those two questions because implementing a West Sac alternative currently appears to have a regulatory/permitting timeline that means that there won’t be any water deliveries by West Sac to Davis for somewhere between 3 and 6 years. For West Sac, that means no cash flow from Davis until water begins to be delivered, and I have to wonder whether West Sac will see that as enough of a fiscal incentive to accept a Davis deal. Does that concern on my part make sense to you? And how would you address that concern in any meaningful way that could make West Sac see the proposed deal in a more favorable light?
Matt:
Obviously not Davisite, but in terms of your first question, I would say, I don’t see Davis as seriously seeking a West Sacramento option or more to the point perhaps, I don’t see WS as a realistic option at this point so I would suspect that WS would have the same beliefs as I do.
David, can you expand on that? Why don’t you see West sacramento as a realistic option for Davis at this point?
Because I think the consideration came up too late, Davis does not have the time to properly study the option, and the pressure of the Woodland deadline will eventually push the decision-makers to Woodland as the “safer” alternative.
West Sacramento would become a more realistic option should the ballot measure fail in March.
[i]Re: “The Woodland option is more expensive but has fewer regulatory hurdles. West Sac is less expensive, but has some additional regulatory risk, and does not ultimately lead to ownership of the facilities.”
[/i]
The other unmentioned MAJOR consideration is water quality. West Sac uses an older, less expensive option for organics removal and disinfection (chlorination) vs using ozonation with biologically activated carbon filtration at the Woodland project. The Woodland plant will thus remove far more organics and provide greater disinfection all the while producing far fewer chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g. chloroform) many of which are carcinogenic and/or endocrine disruptors…and it will be healthier and taste better as a result I am sure Davis citizens will vote to pay a little more to get the higher quality water from the Woodland plant if they are given the option. Perhaps there should be two voter options, Woodland OR West Sac, and the highest vote getter wins (assuming it is a majority). Then the voters get to choose not only if they want Sac River water but also what quality of water they want delivered.
[quote]A closer examination of the numbers has indicated that 12 million gallons a day will be sufficient for the foreseeable future.[/quote] Can any water experts break down this 12 million gallons per day figure for me? In other words, how much of that goes to interior household use (toilets, showers, cooking, cleaning, drinking, etc.)? How much goes to irrigate private household gardens? How much goes to irrigate public parks, greenbelts and other public lands? How much goes to street cleaning and other civic uses? How much goes to commercial uses (as in restaurants and the like) or industrial uses? And how much goes to other areas?
If you divide 12 million gallons by 64,000 people, you get 187.5 gallons per person per day. Obviously, that is far, far more than is being used in households. Hence, I wonder where the rest is going?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Because I think the consideration came up too late, Davis does not have the time to properly study the option, and the pressure of the Woodland deadline will eventually push the decision-makers to Woodland as the “safer” alternative.
West Sacramento would become a more realistic option should the ballot measure fail in March.”[/i]
Thank you for the straight-forward candid answer David. Lets hypothetically fast forward to the day after the ballot measure hypothetically fails. If that were to happen the West Sac alternative might become more realistic from the davis perspective, but it would not change the business realities of a Davis deal for West Sac. A West Sac alternative would still have a regulatory/permitting timeline that means that there won’t be any water deliveries by West Sac to Davis for somewhere between 3 and 6 years from the date of any consummated Davis/West Sac contractual agreement. As I noted earlier, for West Sac, that means no cash flow from Davis until water begins to be delivered. Even after a hypothetical ballot measure failure, will West Sac see enough of a fiscal incentive to accept a Davis deal? How would you address that concern in any meaningful way that could make West Sac see any proposed deal in a more favorable light?
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Can any water experts break down this 12 million gallons per day figure for me? In other words, how much of that goes to interior household use (toilets, showers, cooking, cleaning, drinking, etc.)? How much goes to irrigate private household gardens? How much goes to irrigate public parks, greenbelts and other public lands? How much goes to street cleaning and other civic uses? How much goes to commercial uses (as in restaurants and the like) or industrial uses? And how much goes to other areas?”[/i]
Yes Rich I can do that for you. I have created a series of spreadsheets that drills down into the most recent annual data. I have shared that information in person with Michael Bartolic, Bill Kopper, Paul Brady and a number of other people who have had similar questions to yours. I would be glad to sit down with you to drill down into the data in any way you think will be meaningful and for as long as you have unanswered questions. Please feel free to contact me at [url]mattwill@pacbell.net[/url] and lets set up a time that works for you. That offer is made to anyone else who wants to understand these issues better.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”If you divide 12 million gallons by 64,000 people, you get 187.5 gallons per person per day. Obviously, that is far, far more than is being used in households. Hence, I wonder where the rest is going?”[/i]
I can help you with that question. First the water distribution population is 67,005 (Davis’ 2010 Census population of 65,622 plus Willowbank’s 288 residents & El Macero’s 1,095) so that brings 187.5 down to 179.1. That is still 18% above the 152 gpcd figure reported by the Natural Resources Commission as the average per person consumption this past year. 152 gpcd is the average; however, you multiply that average by a factor of 1.8 to get the summer period maximum consumption, which works out to be 273.6 gpcd, then due to instantaneous differences in when water demand actually happens during the day, the 273.6 gpcd rises to between 492.5 gpcd and 514.4 gpcd. So now the question you asked transforms from, [i]”I wonder where the rest is going?”[/i] to [i]”Where are we getting the 313.4 gpcd to 335.3 gpcd that we need to meet our existing peak demand levels?”[/i] The answer to that question is from the production of our deep aquifer wells and the drawdown of our 9 million gallons of tank storage.
I hope that helps.
Rich… I believe you “nailed’ the answer to your own question… between irrigation (private, DJUSD, City Parks/Greenbelt, guarantees for peak fire flow demand, etc.), the figure may be a bit (3-5%?) high, but definitely not egregiously so.
Alan Pryor, 0952, 09-19-12 “…The other unmentioned MAJOR consideration is water quality. West Sac uses an older, less expensive option for organics removal and disinfection (chlorination) vs using ozonation with biologically activated carbon filtration at the Woodland project. The Woodland plant will thus remove far more organics and provide greater disinfection…and it will be healthier and taste better as a result. I am sure Davis citizens will vote to pay a little more to get the higher quality water from the Woodland plant if they are given the option. “
Remember that the Woodland intake is much closer to the discharge of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at Knights Landing. Since the summer irrigation season coincides with peak urban drinking water demand, these extensive treatments will be necessary, and will provide no guarantee that the drinking water will be…”healthier and taste better as a result.”
Matt wrote:
> the 152 gpcd figure reported by the Natural Resources
> Commission as the average per person consumption this
> past year
I was just looking at a Davis water bill and it said:
“Water use for May/June for a single-family customer was 44 CCF”
Any idea if this is the “average” water use for Davis SFRs?
Converting CCF to gallons (44 x 748) I get 32,912 gallons per home for two months and dividing by 61 I get 540 gallons per day. If I divide by 152 (the national average) I get an average number of people per home of 3.55 that seems a little high probably because June is an above average water use month with more garden irrigation and pool filling.
Matt: So what is your thinking as to the most likely resolution should the ballot initiative fail in March?
David, my crystal ball doesn’t have that much range, but in your hypothetical situation then Davis is going to have to come up with enough “pot sweeteners” to offer West Sacramento in order to make a deal with them attractive enough for them to consider, and those “pot sweeteners” will drive up the cost of a West Sac alternative.
The answer to your question really revolves around why the voters voted against the project on the ballot. In your hypothetical ballot fail scenario, what is the reason the voters voted it down?
Matt: Extending David’s hypothetical…
What will the impact of a negative vote on Davis’ need to make progress towards coming into compliance with the Clean Water Act?
How will a 3-6 year delay in receiving surface water from West Sac (if we accept your anticipated regulatory delay) impact the same?
Mark, the key to your second question in my opinion is how long it might take for Davis to come up with an economic package that would be sufficiently attractive to West Sacramento to bring them to the point where they are willing to sign an agreement with Davis. If it took 2 years to get to that point with them, then the 3-6 year time range would increment up to the 5-8 year range. My knowledge on this subject tells me that based on current thresholds, Davis could probably live with 5 years, but might face some compliance challenges if we got up to 8 years.
However, the current thresholds will be changing in the next 12-18 months and it is speculative to say how the new (and added) thresholds will affect the answer to your question. Some have argued here in past threads that the thresholds will be getting more lenient and I respect their right to have that opinion, but my own crystal ball tells me that the thresholds will be getting less lenient rather than more lenient, and that there will be additional constituent thresholds that we do not currently have that will pose significant compliance challenges. The reason that the WAC voted unanimously to eliminate “groundwater only” as an alternative (in favor of conjunctive use) was primarily because of the risk and uncertainty that existed in the very areas of your questions about compliance with regulations.
I realize that I’m begging off on a specific answer to your question, but in the worst case scenario of risk and uncertainty Davis would find itself paying lots of money without any water quality benefit, and in the best case scenario Davis would be spending considerably less money, but still without any water quality benefit/improvement.
JMHO
“…and I have to wonder whether West Sac will see that as enough of a fiscal incentive to accept a Davis deal”
Matt… perhaps I am missing something here. Why would West Sac not be willing to start selling water to Davis in 3-6 years. This delay would not change the fiscal benefit that West Sac would accrue at that time. For Davis’ part, we would,IMO, have no difficulty in managing our water needs for that time period and obtaining a waiver from the State as we would be actively engaged in solving our water quality problem with a solution just a few years away.
“… what is the reason the voters voted it down?”
One important reason would be that the voters believe that the West Sac option was never honestly considered by staff or the Council majority. Brett Lee’s comments suggest that the “horse has already left the barn” strategy of past Saylor Councils could well still be allowed to control the outcome. One thing that Davis voters will not abide is feeling that they have been “suckered” and manipulated.
I still think cost is going to be a huge issue.
To: Steve Hayes – [i]”Remember that the Woodland intake is much closer to the discharge of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at Knights Landing. Since the summer irrigation season coincides with peak urban drinking water demand, these extensive treatments will be necessary, and will provide no guarantee that the drinking water will be…”healthier and taste better as a result.”[/i]
Actually there is virtually no difference in Sac River water quality between the proposed intake for the Woodland project and the existing intake for the Bryce Bend West Sac plant based on 100s of samples collected and analyzed over a period of several years. The reason is that the Sacramento River is not like an irrigation system where water is put into the ground and it disperses in all directions thus diluting any contaminants over distance. Rather it is more like a straw where contaminated water put in one end remains substantially unchanged from point A to point B (except for a little sedimentation over a very short distance). In fact, the further down the river you go the more urban runoff you have (albeit in winter mos only)which increases contamination.
Substantial monitoring of various constituents in the Sacramento River near these two sites has occurred for a number of years and the information is contained in a CWA report entitled “Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the Woodland Davis Water Supply Project“ which is dated March, 2011”. This document is available from the CWA.
This report looked at water quality analysis taken for several years at the proposed RD 2035 intake structure and compared it to analyses taken over a longer period at Bryce Bend and other locations upstream and downstream of the two locations. Although the sample results were averaged and reported over different time period and in some cases using different analytical methods, the report concluded that overall water quality was quite similar at the two locations in terms of suspended solids, total dissolved solids, individual constituents, and total organic carbon (TOC).
Of further interest in the report, though, is the author’s advice as to post-intake water treatment based on the water quality at those sites particularly with respect to removal and treatment for TOC without formation of regulated chlorinated disinfection byproducts (known as DBPs) such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids. The authors made the following conclusions in the report
[i]“Although enhanced coagulation and other treatment measures to reduce TOC are likely sufficient to meet regulated DBP levels, the margin they provide is not great. As DBPs are one of the more important health risks associated with modern water treatment, even at regulated levels, the WDCWA may chose to consider lower targets for these contaminants. Should this choice be made, other disinfection options, such as ozone for primary disinfection…”[/i] should be considered.
The author also stated in the report, [i]“In summary, while the …test results indicated low THM and HAA formation following enhanced coagulation, experience of downstream water treatment utilities indicate there is enough variability in water quality for the TTHM concentrations to periodically approach the regulatory MCL. So alternative disinfectants, such as ozone, should be also considered for the new DWWSP treatment facility.”[/i]
I think the fact that ozone cannot be easily added and used at the West Sac Bryce Bend plant is a strong impetus in favor of pursuing the greater water quality that would be provided by the Woodland plant.
I wonder about two policy actions.
Why are we not proceeding with water savings and reduction ASAP and Secondly, what should be done about water softeners?
There was one when we moved into our home 30 years ago but we had it removed immediately. However, I expect many households do have them.
David Thompson
Matt:
My memory of the events are faulty, so if you will please, during the last round of negotiations over the waste water treatment I believe that Davis was found to be out of compliance and was given a grace period of a specific period of time in order to come into compliance.
When does that grace period end?
Does the Water Board have a history of extending or renewing grace periods for those entities that have for whatever reason, failed to come into compliance within the required time?
How confident are you of Davisite2’s statement?
“[i]For Davis’ part, we would,IMO, have no difficulty…obtaining a waiver from the State as we would be actively engaged in solving our water quality problem with a solution just a few years away.[/i]”
Thank you.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Matt… perhaps I am missing something here. Why would West Sac not be willing to start selling water to Davis in 3-6 years.”[/i]
I’m only speculating davisite, but if there indeed is a culture clash between Woodland and Davis, there is almost surely an even bigger culture clash between West Sac and Davis. West Sac has an even more aggressive growth plan (both economic and housing) than Woodland does, and in effect what Davis would be saying to West Sac is, “Tie up 12 mgd of your available water capacity [u]now[/u] for us and we will begin paying you for doing that [u]later[/u]. That kind of delayed cash flow scenario doesn’t doa anything for them in the timeframe when they have their cash flow crunch . . . which is now because of the demise of the Redevelopment Agencies in California. Jerry Brown has created a many millions of dollars hole in West Sac’s budget, and they need help in filling that hole sooner rather than later. So one has to ask, if we can’t help them now, why should they tie up a valuable asset of theirs for us?
The more I have learned, the more I feel that West Sac controls the vast majority of the negotiating leverage in a negotiation with Davis. They have what we want, and unless we can figure out how to adjust (accelerate) the cash flows for them, we really don’t have much of what they want. Their core values of economic and housing growth cause them to believe that they may well have generated other customers for that 12 mgd sooner than the 6 years that is the upper bound of the 3-6 year range.
Please realize that all the above is speculation on my part based on the second-hand evidence I see. Brett Lee may be seeing something very different than I am seeing, and I am more than prepared to be proven wrong in my speculation, but that is indeed how I see the situation as it currently exists.
I think you are right that if we have a collaborative course charted with West Sac, that we will be able to manage our water quality problem in a way that the State will be willing to understand, but for me the “long pole in the tent” is simply getting to a mutually beneficial agreement with West Sac.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”One important reason would be that the voters believe that the West Sac option was never honestly considered by staff or the Council majority. Brett Lee’s comments suggest that the “horse has already left the barn” strategy of past Saylor Councils could well still be allowed to control the outcome. One thing that Davis voters will not abide is feeling that they have been “suckered” and manipulated.”[/i]
I understand your assessment of the voters’ feelings, and don’t disagree with your last sentence. However, if West Sac says to Davis, “Your answer to the [i]What’s In It For Me[/i] question simply doesn’t have enough in it for West Sac,” will there really be any feeling of being suckered or manipulated? As much as we may be inclined to hold past Councils to task for past decisions, if West Sac simply doesn’t see a win-win in the deal that Davis is offering, how does that tie back to past Councils?
Said another way, West Sac is going to be making its decision in the here and now, and Davis needs to make its offer to West Sac in the here and now.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”My memory of the events are faulty, so if you will please, during the last round of negotiations over the waste water treatment I believe that Davis was found to be out of compliance and was given a grace period of a specific period of time in order to come into compliance.
When does that grace period end?”[/i]
The “Time Schedule Order” is the official name for what you are referring to as the grace period, and there are at least two separate dates one in 2016 and another in 2018.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Does the Water Board have a history of extending or renewing grace periods for those entities that have for whatever reason, failed to come into compliance within the required time?
How confident are you of Davisite2’s statement?
“For Davis’ part, we would,IMO, have no difficulty…obtaining a waiver from the State as we would be actively engaged in solving our water quality problem with a solution just a few years away.”
Thank you. “[/i]
The key to answering this question really depends IMHO on whether Davis has a valid contract in place to be moving toward a solution, as well as a valid five-year rate structure that locks in a revenue stream. If both of those things are in place my crystal ball says that davisite’s statement is probably more accurate than inaccurate. However, as I have said above, for me there is a whole lot of work that has to be done in order to be able to give West Sac an offer that answers their [i]”What’s In It For Me?”[/i] question to their satisfaction. If we have no contract in place (with either West Sac or Woodland) that shows we have a clear path to better wastewater discharge chemistry, then I think the State will play hard ball with us.
Again, JMHO.
David Thompson said . . .
[i]”I wonder about two policy actions.
Why are we not proceeding with water savings and reduction ASAP and Secondly, what should be done about water softeners?
There was one when we moved into our home 30 years ago but we had it removed immediately. However, I expect many households do have them.”[/i]
David, the reality is that we have been proceeding with aggressive water savings over the past six years. Here’s our trend
2001207.0
2002207.0
2003199.0
2004205.0
2005196.0
2006194.0
2007197.0
2008189.0
2009169.0
2010158.0
2011152.0
That’s a 27% reduction in gpcd.
Regarding water softeners let me point you to the following Staff Report given to the WAC. [url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-07-26-item4-attachment-surface-water-needs-wastewater.pdf[/url] It was prepared by Michael Lindquist, whom I respect immensely. I think it does an excellent job of addressing that issue.
Oops, the first four characters are the year and the last five characters are the gpcd. So it should read
2001 – 207.0
2002 – 207.0
2003 – 199.0
2004 – 205.0
2005 – 196.0
2006 – 194.0
2007 – 197.0
2008 – 189.0
2009 – 169.0
2010 – 158.0
2011 – 152.0
Matt… A Davis contract to contribute significantly to their coffers in 3-6 years would certainly be factored into their med-range budgetary calculations and would still be quite valuable. Contracts, for example, are not items that require immediate cash flow increases. Their other option is simply NO Davis money into West Sacramento city coffers. It is pure speculation as to how extensive Davis’ “sweeteners” would have to be(if any). The issue is Davis putting forward movement with the JPA on hold, not capitulating to Woodland’s threats, and taking the time and sincere effort to pursue a deal with West Sac.
davisite, you and I are not far apart in our respective goals. I have long said and felt that a regional plant at Bryte Bend serving West Sac, Woodland and Davis was the most ecologically and economically sensible path to be pursuing. However, that “best path” clearly isn’t going to happen, so we have to deal with the realities on the ground now.
Back in Business School the very first semester we were told for the first time that “Net Income is Bull Sheet . . . Cash is King!!” That mantra was hammered into us over and over and over and over again through our 19 courses. IMHO that mantra is particularly applicable to the situation West Sac is facing. To torture a metaphor, a cash stream that is deferred 3-6 years may be touted by Davis as having a “high thread count,” but for West Sac it is still a sheet.
Add to that fundamental financial disconnect (which is fixable if we are willing to spend more of our money), the fact that culturally West Sac is even less like davis than Woodland is, you have a substantial barrier to reaching a deal that can be described by both parties as Win-Win.
I’m not sure that the time element that you include in your comment above is going to do anything to change either the cash flows or the community culture differences.
Let me ask you a question, if you found yourself as part of the West Sac/Davis negotiating team and you heard West Sac say, we are not interested in pursuing this negotiation any further. You aren’t offering us a deal that meets our needs and we really think our two communities are different enough that we are going to eventually find ourselves feeling that Davis is trying to tell West Sac how it should live its life” how would you go about changing their mind . . .or would you accept their answer?
Excellent and informative posts. Good work community of tremendously smart people!
From the city report on water softeners…
[i]Convincing users to eliminate the use of water softeners will be greatly facilitated by the availability of softer water – the more surface water in the system, the higher likelihood users will feel comfortable with not using a softener.[/i]
I agree with that 100%. In fact, force my wife to accept the mega-hard west Davis water and she will be in the city offices protesting about her flat hair, her water-spotted glassware and the rings and stains around all the sinks, tubs, toilets and showers.
This leads me to suggest a little project for those that want to ensure a successful vote.
Create and distribute a layman-worded PROS/CONS COST/BENEFIT (and/or FAQ) bullet list for each alternative, and convince Dunning to support one. We call this a decision support approach… and it is generally more effective than a marketing approach when the topic is complicated like this.
[quote]Because I think the consideration came up too late, Davis does not have the time to properly study the option, and the pressure of the Woodland deadline will eventually push the decision-makers to Woodland as the “safer” alternative…West Sacramento would become a more realistic option should the ballot measure fail in March. [/quote]
I’m reminded of the old question, “How come we don’t have time to do it right the first time, but we have time to do it all over again.”
I sincerely hope the negotiating team for the WS option takes their assignment seriously.
.
I’m sure they will. The question is whether the people on the other side of the table will take them seriously.
Why would any political or staff leader in W Sacto take our CC or staff seriously when a clear majority of the Davis CC, and their appointed members of the WAC, are dead set on the JPA, an overbuilt plant, paying for 12 mgd water supply that we will probably never need, and certainly not for years (unless Saylor and friends ramp up the sprawl development in Eastern Yolo County as we come out of the great recession), and probably ready to vote for a DBO model where the corporation by corporate law has to suck profits out of our wallets to pay shareholders?
Mayor Krovoza knew there is a deadline (he helped set it), yet here he goes, off around the world, leaving Brett and the WAC and ratepayers to wait?
Like we all know, the deal is done for the JPA; the West Sac exploration of a deal is just for show, to assist the campaing for the Woodland JPA deal.
I call it as I see them.
Mike, that is one of your better posts. You clearly outline your perspective on the issues without hyperbole . . . and you do indeed call them as you see them.
Steve Hayes – “Remember that the Woodland intake is much closer to the discharge of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at Knights Landing. Since the summer irrigation season coincides with peak urban drinking water demand, these extensive treatments will be necessary, and will provide no guarantee that the drinking water will be…”healthier and taste better as a result.”
alanpryor09/19/12 – 03:06 PM…
“Actually there is virtually no difference in Sac River water quality between the proposed intake for the Woodland project and the existing intake for the Bryce Bend West Sac plant based on 100s of samples collected and analyzed over a period of several years.” (and many, many, more paragraphs)
Even after all of the rhetoric, a guy like me who has an earned Ph.D in Aquatic Ecology, was the lead scientist in a major UCD study measuring the impact of the discharge of the GCID on the receiving water quality of the Sacramento River at Knights Landing, and was Chief of the Bay-Delta Monitoring and Analysis Section for the California Department of Water Resources for sixteen very busy and fulfilling years still has siting questions and discharge (rice herbicide) concerns in this matter? Sorry!