By Kim Floyd –
Millions in federal funding are headed to Yolo County, thanks in large part to the efforts of local water suppliers seeking to minimize cost of service increases for their users. Reclamation District 2035 (RD 2035) and the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) announced today that the United States Bureau of Reclamation has authorized 16.7 million dollars toward the construction of a 39 million dollar joint water intake facility on the Sacramento River.
Of that amount, $8.3 million has been appropriated in the current fiscal year to allow construction in 2013. The balance of funding will be delivered as construction progresses.
According to RD 2035 General Manager Regina Cherovsky, the funding is in addition to $1.2 million the Bureau previously granted to pay for intake facility design and environmental work. The facility will replace RD 2035’s existing century-old intake, but will be jointly constructed and operated by RD 2035 and WDCWA for both agricultural and municipal uses. State-of-the-art fish screens will protect out-migrating salmonids and other threatened and endangered fish, while at the same time enhance the reliability of water deliveries to area farms and cities.
The intake is a cornerstone of WDCWA’s $245 million regional water supply project, an effort to deliver surface water to Woodland, and potentially Davis as well as UC Davis, by 2016. Project objectives include improving water supply reliability and the quality of drinking water and wastewater discharge.
RD 2035 and WDCWA leaders were quick to credit federal, state and local elected officials for writing letters, initiating contact with federal agencies, and other activities in support of funding commitments and appropriations.
“I applaud the federal government for supporting this worthy project. This project improves drinking water quality for the residents of Yolo County, while also improving water quality in the Sacramento River and in the imperiled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” said State Senator Lois Wolk. “This is a rare opportunity to move forward a project that truly benefits both the water supply of this region and the ecosystem of the Delta.”
“This intake will reduce the environmental impacts associated with RD 2035 and WDCWA having separate diversion facilities. I am proud of the broad regional, state and federal support for the project’s potential to promote restoration of historical ecological conditions,” added State Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada. “It’s a win for the environment and our local economy.”
Officials from both cities emphasized the importance of developing regional partnerships and securing state and federal funding in their efforts to minimize increases to water rates.
“The joint intake facility is an exemplary model of a true public-private partnership. Historic agreements between the WDCWA and the Conaway Preservation Group have made it possible. The partnership will allow us to achieve very significant economies of scale in all facets of construction and operations, ultimately reducing the long-term cost of water for both agricultural and municipal users,” said Bill Marble, Woodland City Councilmember and WDCWA Chair. “The importance of this partnership to ours and future generations cannot be overstated,” he added.
In Davis, the City’s Water Advisory Commission (WAC) recommended that the city pursue a surface water supply to supplement its use of groundwater. The WAC also asked the city council to carefully compare the relative merits of a project with Woodland compared to purchasing water from West Sacramento. “As our city proceeds with its consideration, this is extremely valuable information from an overall project cost perspective,” added Davis Mayor and WDCWA Vice-Chair Joe Krovoza. “In Davis, we’re carefully evaluating project costs in relationship to impacts on water rates. Our cost assumptions have included federal and state funding for the joint intake with RD 2035. This news eliminates one significant cost variable – and in the right direction. Our primary goal remains an effective and affordable surface water system to supplement the sustainable use of our best groundwater.”
Woodland has approved all rate increases necessary to proceed with its share of the project, and will move forward regardless of Davis’ participation. “We’ve been active partners with RD 2035 in efforts to secure federal funding,” said Woodland Mayor and WDCWA Board Member Marlin “Skip” Davies. “We have a duty to our ratepayers to reduce project costs wherever possible, so WDCWA is also continuing to aggressively pursuing state and federal funding for the larger water supply project.”
The Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency is a joint powers authority representing the cities of Woodland and Davis, and UC Davis. The Agency is responsible for planning, financing and constructing a surface water supply project to provide high-quality surface water from the Sacramento River to Woodland, and potentially Davis, residents by 2016. A groundbreaking was recently held to commence work on the water treatment plant site. The primary objectives of the project are to improve water supply reliability, water quality, and help the cities comply with increasingly strict water quality regulations. Learn more at www.wdcwa.com.
Matt
Does this change the dynamics that are being considered by the WAC? It would seem that it does. Is the timing serendipitous or ??
Maybe I am overly skeptical, but it feels like we have heard this story before, that the feds are coming in with extra money to pay for this and for that. And then, we seem each time to find out that the WDCWA had already budgeted in the assumption that the feds would be paying this amount, and due to that, the total estimated cost of the project remains unchanged. I would thus ask: Is that happening here, again?
“Woodland has approved all rate increases necessary to proceed with its share of the project, and will move forward regardless of Davis’ participation”
Rate increases for “their share of the project” does not necessarily equate to what is needed if they build their own facility. Woodland will most likely have to go back to their voters with an increase in their proposed rates. There is little doubt,in my mind, that that this is part of the voter-intimidation narrative designed to neutralize opposition to the JPA project.
“Is the timing serendipitous…”
This money, as noted, has already been factored in. This is more of the “political theater” dialogue that offered up to us as the Davis Council prepared to approve the JPA project and fearfully awaits the voter-backlash-referendum which probably will be necessary if, as I suspect, the wording of the Council’s ballot measure is carefully crafted to obfuscate rather than clarify the choices for the voters.
“Maybe I am overly skeptical, but it feels like we have heard this story before, that the feds are coming in with extra money to pay for this and for that. And then, we seem each time to find out that the WDCWA had already budgeted in the assumption that the feds would be paying this amount, and due to that, the total estimated cost of the project remains unchanged. I would thus ask: Is that happening here, again?”
Good point Rifkin, it shouldn’t be too hard to find out.
SODA said . . .
[i]”Matt
Does this change the dynamics that are being considered by the WAC? It would seem that it does. Is the timing serendipitous or ??”[/i]
No SODA, this does not. What has happened as I understand it is that the Federal government process has moved from an “agreed to authorize” status to “authorized” status. To the best of my knowledge the dollar amount is unchanged.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Maybe I am overly skeptical, but it feels like we have heard this story before, that the feds are coming in with extra money to pay for this and for that. And then, we seem each time to find out that the WDCWA had already budgeted in the assumption that the feds would be paying this amount, and due to that, the total estimated cost of the project remains unchanged. I would thus ask: Is that happening here, again?”[/i]
I don’t think you are being overly skeptical Rich. You have indeed heard a variant of this story before when the Feds agreed to authorize the money. You are correct the budget estimates prepared by the WDCWA to date have indeed taken the position that the Feds would not go back on their previously given commitment. The ball simply moved far enough down the field to move the chains.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]This money, as noted, has already been factored in. This is more of the “political theater” dialogue that offered up to us as the Davis Council prepared to approve the JPA project and fearfully awaits the voter-backlash-referendum which probably will be necessary if, as I suspect, the wording of the Council’s ballot measure is carefully crafted to obfuscate rather than clarify the choices for the voters.[/i]
Rich is showing a healthy skepticism. davisite is expressing a certain level of cynicism. It is possible that this is political theater, but it is more likely simply the reporting of a change in status of a multi-step process. I am more optimistic than davisite is that the ballot language will be both transparent and easy to read and understand. The WAC’s job will not be done until that is accomplished, and sufficient public outreach has been done to ensure an informed community of voters.
Given what Matt provided (thanks Matt; where’s Elaine lately?), I think this article is misleading. Who is the author?
SODA, the author is the public outreach coordinator for the WDCWA.
How do y ou feel misled by the article?
As you know I’ve been consistently working for objectivity and transparency in this process ever since I got first involved. It is important to understand communications breakdowns when they occur. Your feeling misled is a clear sign that there is a communications breakdown in this article.
Elaine has chosen to withdraw from Vanguard participation for an unspecified period of time.
I read the article, albeit quickly on iPhone, as a new development, not as something that was expected. After your explanation I did remember.
I think it would have been more full disclosure to cite the author’s affiliation and state that these funds were expected and already factored in. If those two points are clear in the article, I apologize.
I hope Elaine continues to read the DV. I agree she was perhaps too close/sensitive to the WAC comments for her health.
[i]”I think it would have been more full disclosure to … state that these funds were expected and already factored in.”[/i]
This is about the 10th time the pro-WDCWA folks have played this same exact game. Over and over they make a big deal about some new funding source and say that getting the money is big news and we ought to be dancing in the streets over getting this new source of money, and each time we find out that it’s not news, it was expected from the outset, and that the total cost of the project will not be lowered, because the total cost all along assumed this money was coming.
As a result of this chicanery, I never take what the pro-WDCWA folks say is Gospel truth as if it were the Gospel truth. Not that the Gospel is even true ([url]http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God–Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/B006QS02F8/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348716078&sr=1-5&keywords=bart+ehrman+books[/url]).
Rich, what do you think the ideal solution is to Davis’ water/wastewater challenges?
“Elaine has chosen to withdraw from Vanguard participation for an unspecified period of time.”
I have been wondering where ERM was. There have been some very rude posts directed her way. I hope she comes back.
Also haven’t seen Octane lately.
[i]”Rich, what do you think the ideal solution is to Davis’ water/wastewater challenges?”[/i]
Let me start by saying I agree that we need to move from ground water to surface water for our interior water needs. I am not in doubt about that.
But if we are talking “ideals,” I think we should have been planning for a future which distinguishes between water we drink, flush and cook and clean with and water we use for irrigation. The difference is twofold: one, the former category of water goes into the sewage system and needs to be treated, while the latter does not; and two, I believe we use a majority of our water for the second category, irrigation (when you include the water used in Davis for parks, greenbelts and other public greens).
Clearly, the water which goes into sewage treatment must be (soon enough) higher quality water, allowing for higher quality outflow from our sewage treatment plant. Thus, ideally, I would like to see Davis purchase water from West Sacramento for our interior water needs. I am certain that we can strike a deal with West Sac which provides us interior quality treated water for less than we will be able to get by way of the WDCWA. West Sac has nothing to lose by selling us water.
At the same time, I think for our irrigation water (including household irrigation), well water would be a perfectly fine source for the long term*. The problem is that we would have to spend some money to have a second pipe delivering water to everyone’s house or apartment complex. The first (which is already there) could deliver low cost “untreated” ground water for irrigation. The second would deliver potable Sacramento River water.
Another thing I would like to see Davis pursue is a transfer of our share of the WDCWA’s Sacramento River water rights from the WDCWA to West Sacramento. That would thus guarantee our long-term clean water source.
*I assume that all the medium and deep wells will not soon go dry.
Rich: medium wells have to go off line relatively soon, as they are the first issue with regard to water quality. Deeper wells have water quality issues that will likely be a problem in a few years. As to when the deep wells will “go dry” — that isn’t the issue really, although the long-term sustainability of that aquifer is not known. What is at issue is conflict between Davis wells and UCD wells. Long-term use of the deep wells is not a safe or prudent course for Davis.
As you note, the absence of separated supply lines precludes your first option. Thus the choice we have now is between WDCWA and the West Sac option to blend with our existing water.
[i]” I am certain that we can strike a deal with West Sac which provides us interior quality treated water for less than we will be able to get by way of the WDCWA…”[/i]
Why are you certain of that? What time-frame are you using to compare?
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/waterprojectcostschart.png[/img]
[i]”Rich: medium wells have to go off line relatively soon, as they are the first issue with regard to water quality. Deeper wells have water quality issues that will likely be a problem in a few years.”[/i]
This is only true if we continue to use well water, medium or deep, for interior treated water which will wind up in our sewage system. There is no water quality problem with ground water (medium or deep) if it is used exclusively for landscape irrigation, which is what I think would be best for Davis.
Actually, there is. Landscape irrigation ends up in the sewer system as well. In fact, landscape watering is a common source of pollution with phosphates, pesticides, and other contaminants.
But more to the point: we can’t replumb the city to separate them.
[i]”Landscape irrigation ends up in the sewer system as well.”[/i]
How so?
I know that a very small percentage of water being used for exterior landscape irrigation ends up in our storm drains. But stormwater does not go into the sewer system, AFAIK. I think all of that is routed directly to the City ponds ([url]http://daviswiki.org/West_Pond[/url]), no?
[i]”But more to the point: we can’t replumb the city to separate them.”[/i]
I understand it would be very difficult to replumb much of Davis to have a second water-source pipe. It would have been a lot easier to accomplish if, back in the early ’90s when planning for the use of Sacramento River water began. Everywhere in Wildhorse, Evergreen, Shasta, and other new neighborhoods could have easily accomodated a potable and non-potable source.
However, it could still be done in new parts of town, where we have major apartment complexes and everywhere we have public greenspace, all parks and greenbelts, etc. That would amount to a lot of our irrigation water.
Know that there are many cities which have both potable and non-potable water delivered to households across the U.S. Tampa Florida is an example ([url]http://www.tampagov.net/dept_water/how_do_i/Reclaimed_Water.asp[/url]) of a somewhat large city which does this in all of its newer neighborhoods. They deliver “reclaimed” water for irrigation.
From the city’s stormwater report:
“The City’s storm drain system is divided into 11 basins (Figure 1-1). Stormwater runoff sheet flows to the stormwater sewer system and is directed to detention basins or nearby drainage channels. Detention basin pump stations lift water from these facilities into regional and vegetated drainage channels. These channels consist of Covell, Mace Ranch Park, and El Macero Drainage Channels, and Channel A. These channels ultimately flow to the Yolo Bypass. A portion of the runoff is lifted from Channel A and directed to the City of Davis Restoration Treatment Wetlands.”
Additionally, some pools drain into the sanitary sewer system, and one doesn’t.
Lots of info here: [url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/pw/stormwater/pdfs/2011COD-SWAnnualReport.pdf[/url]
DON: [i]”Landscape irrigation ends up in [u]the sewer system[/u] as well.” [/i]
RICH: [b]”How so?”[/b]
DON (quoting from the City): [i]”Stormwater runoff sheet flows to [u]the stormwater sewer system[/u] and is directed to detention basins or nearby drainage channels.”[/i]
Maybe we are having a semantic, and not a real difference here. However, your first statement refers to “the sewer system.” That is not the same thing as “the stormwater sewer system.” The former goes to our sewage treatment plant, and is thus subject to water quality regulations upon its exit. The latter never goes to sewage treatment. It is not subject to those regulations which are driving us to adopt a cleaner source of interior water.
My 2:03 PM italics should have ended after channels. Sorry.
Much of it ultimately goes to the Yolo Bypass, which is what the regulations are trying to protect. So I’m not sure your statement ‘it is not subject to those regulations’ is true.
More the point, the cost and logistics of replumbing our irrigation systems would be prohibitive, requiring it this subject is coming up way too late in the process to be of interest anyway. And if you bring in a good-quality surface water to replace a major part of our water supply, the whole thing is moot.
Requiring that kind of reclamation on new projects would increase their cost for little benefit. If you have replaced your water supply with good water, you gain very little from the new requirements.
Testimony before the WAC (and discussion on the Vanguard in 2011) showed that long-term reliance on the city’s wells — either aquifer — is not a safe or sustainable option. So I don’t know why you would propose replumbing the city’s irrigation system to keep using those aquifers. And the deep aquifer doesn’t solve all water quality problems.
We have a huge, abundant supply of good surface water flowing by twelve miles away. That solves all the effluent problems. The WDWCA provides that water, owned by Davis, essentially forever. No other option does that. Most efforts to [i]reduce[/i] the cost seem to actually just [i]defer[/i] the cost. West Sac is not cheaper. West Sac does not provide the water supply forever. West Sac does not provide ownership.
[i]”Much of it ultimately goes to the Yolo Bypass …”[/i]
That is not correct. It is not the case that much of the irrigation water ultimately goes to the Yolo Bypass. A very small percentage of it goes into the stormwater sewer system; and then a small percentage of that ultimately goes to the Yolo Bypass.
[i]”… which is what the regulations are trying to protect. So I’m not sure your statement ‘it is not subject to those regulations’ is true.”[/i]
I am 100% certain that the RWQCB regulations on treated water have no say when it comes to stormwater. If we did my ideal solution–as Matt had asked me above–all the water going to our wastewater treatment plant would be Sacramento River water and we would presumably not have a problem with salt or selenium being discharged.
I concede that I do not know if the RWQCB tests our stormwater for salts or selenium. I highly doubt that they do, however. I have never once read where anyone said our discharge problem includes the pollutants in our stormwater.
Insofar as some share of our stormwater ends up in “regional and vegetated drainage channels” that then drain into the Yolo Bypass, it seems to me that (if that presents a regulatory problem) the common sense solution would be for Davis to build some additional draining ponds (in addition to the West Pond and the Partansky Pond, nee North Davis Pond). If we did that, none of our stormwater would end up in the Yolo Bypass or the Sacramento River.
[i]” I don’t know why you would propose replumbing the city’s irrigation system to keep using those aquifers.”[/i]
Cost.
Even if we get a much better deal (based on dollars per CCF) from West Sacramento’s treated river water than buying into the WDCWA plan, it will be far more expensive (based on dollars per CCF) than will be untreated well water from out existing wells.
Long term that would be a huge savings. All the water we use indoors would be expensive, treated water. All the water we use outdoors would be cheap, untreated water. The former category would then go into the sewage treatment system. The latter category would go back into recharging the aquifer or it would evaporate.
[i]”Testimony before the WAC (and discussion on the Vanguard in 2011) showed that long-term reliance on the city’s wells — either aquifer — is not a safe or sustainable option.”[/i]
It is not a safe or sustainable option [b]for water which will end up going into our sewage treatment system.[/b] There is no evidence or discussion I have seen which says that the City’s wells are neither safe nor sustainable for producing irrigation water for the City’s landscaping needs. If you can point to evidence which contradicts that, please do.
[i]”All the water we use indoors would be expensive, treated water. All the water we use outdoors would be cheap, untreated water.”[/i]
Although I got no decipherable answer from Matt Williams or any other sel-styled water mavens when I asked for a breakdown of water usage in Davis, I am very confident that [b]the majority of the water we use in Davis is not for interior household usage. [/b]
I base that conclusion on the extremely high number of gallons allegedly used on average every day in Davis–2 million gallons or roughly 185 gallons per person. If you add up the average number of times a person flushes the toilet, the amount used in a shower, the amount used for cleaning and cooking and so on, it is nowhere near 185 gallons per person. It’s not half that. That number obviously includes great amounts used outside of the house, including water used for private and public irrigation.
[img]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rttli6DZ9TQ/0.jpg[/img]
Someone just sent me a link to a column by City Councilman Brett Lee ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/lets-rethink-our-real-water-needs/[/url]), written when he was Candidate Brett Lee. It seems like my ideas are in line with what Brett said well before I did.
Here are some excerpts from Brett’s op-ed: [quote] I believe the current approach to the proposed water project is backwards. What is being proposed is a 1970s-style big municipal project that is being driven by the assumed need that we must produce 160 gallons of drinking water per person per day. It assumes that we will continue to use drinking water to irrigate our lawns and wash our cars long into the future.
Is it not odd that we propose to pull 160 gallons of water per person per day out of the Sacramento River, treat it to drinking water quality and then pipe it eight miles to Davis so that close to 100 gallons of that water can be used to keep our lawns green?
…
For a forward-thinking town, I am surprised that there have not been more voices talking about more modern approaches to water use. Cities such as Orlando and Las Vegas have embraced the idea of matching water quality to water use, so parks and greenbelts there are watered with non-potable water.
Our Public Works Department has some plans to use well water to irrigate parks and greenbelts. But I believe these plans do not go far enough.
…
Let’s take the ConAgra site at Covell Boulevard and J Street. It is likely that in the not-too-distant future there will be development there. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that 400 units will be built and 1,000 new residents will join our city. Where do they get their water?
The city could build a supply line from a nearby existing unused well to the ConAgra property to provide non-potable water. ConAgra would be required to design a project with a dual pipe system — one pipe for outdoor use water and one pipe for indoor use. (This is not cutting-edge; it is tried and true and done all over the United States and the world, including the UC Davis campus).
In this way, instead of each new resident using 160 gallons of drinking water per day, they would instead only need about 40 gallons of drinking water a day. The 1,000 new people would use only the drinking water of 250 people. …
Wouldn’t it be great to once again be on the map for forward-thinking planning? A dual-piped community at the ConAgra site, for example, would be a showcase for the region. It would show how to move forward into a future that will face the very real need to more wisely use one of our most precious resources — water. [/quote]
The driving force behind the water quality regulations is the Delta plan. Hence the selenium regulations (for example) and the sampling sites for that.
As to this: “[i]It is not the case that much of the irrigation water ultimately goes to the Yolo Bypass. A very small percentage of it goes into the stormwater sewer system; and then a small percentage of that ultimately goes to the Yolo Bypass.”[/i]
You could be right. Since I have been compiling water resource data, I would like your source on that.
[i]There is no evidence or discussion I have seen which says that the City’s wells are neither safe nor sustainable for producing irrigation water for the City’s landscaping needs.[/i]
Yes: the point is that we can’t keep depleting the deep aquifer.
Re: Brett’s proposal.
Congratulations, Con-Agra residents. You get to pay more for your houses in order to have separate plumbing. Which would be unnecessary if you just tied in with the WDCWA project.
[i]”You get to pay more for your houses in order to have separate plumbing.”[/i]
No. That is not how housing is priced. It’s a competitive market. If someone could get a better price elsewhere, they would go elsewhere. It might (slightly) harm the profits of ConAgra. But only the amount that it adds in value to the buyers would it add to the price that buyers would pay.
[i]”Which you’re going to do anyway, because you still need potable water.”[/i]
Keep in mind: your solution is providing 4 times as much potable water as we need. Brett’s solution would not use potable water for watering a lawn or washing a car. Potable water is much, much more expensive than untreated, available well water.
Rich: [i]”It is not the case that much of the irrigation water ultimately goes to the Yolo Bypass. A very small percentage of it goes into the stormwater sewer system; and then a small percentage of that ultimately goes to the Yolo Bypass.” [/i]
Don: [i]”… I would like your source on that.”[/i]
My source is deductive reasoning and common sense. We are talking here about “irrigation water.” If I water my lawn and 95% lands on my lawn and 5% lands on the sidewalk, it is deductive to conclude that at most 5% of irrigation water goes into the stormwater sewer system. Probably less than that, because 5% not hitting my lawn seems like a very high estimate, and much of that which misses the lawn will wind up evaporating en route to the storm drain.
Further, folks use water in their yards for things other than lawns, where 100% of the water goes to the plants or is absorbed in the ground. That is true for all of my vegetable garden and backyard rose garden and my backyard trees, for example. None of that goes into the gutter and then into the stormwater sewer.
So it seems quite obvious to state, as I did, “a very small percentage of it goes into the stormwater sewer system.”
I added, “… and then a small percentage of that ultimately goes to the Yolo Bypass.”
That is obvious, too. Again, most of the water in our stormage drains goes to the two large ponds, West and North. None of that makes it to the Yolo Bypass. And since there is no constant and heavy flow of water from East or South Davis’s urban drainage channels to the Yolo Bypass, much of that water must evaporate before it makes it to the Bypass.
Rich: [i]”There is no evidence or discussion I have seen which says that the City’s wells are neither safe nor sustainable for producing irrigation water for the City’s landscaping needs.”[/i]
Don: [i]”Yes: the point is that we can’t keep depleting the deep aquifer.[/i]
But if we turn to the Sacramento River for our potable water needs, we won’t have to just rely on the deep aquifer for non-potable. We can use that and use the intermediate wells, which, as you say, will not be good for potable water needs, but (as I say) would be fine for irrigation.
Rich: you can’t keep pumping from the wells. That’s the problem. So it’s not ‘4 times as much potable water as we need.’ We need to stop pumping from the wells. Subsidence is a concern with the intermediate wells; contamination and harm to UCD wells is a concern with the deep wells.
Untreated available well water isn’t a continuing option for Davis.
Just curious: you’re telling me that the costs of building houses aren’t a factor in how much houses cost?
I’m frankly not understanding what you are proposing for Davis water. Replumb old housing developments? I think you said that isn’t viable. Mandate dual plumbing for new developments? That wouldn’t reduce our water needs much. Buy water from West Sac? Well, that brings us back to the options before the WAC and the city council right now. The West Sac option is before us. It costs more in the long run. Are you proposing to shrink it even further?
Ok, we cross-posted.
“But if we turn to the Sacramento River for our potable water needs, we won’t have to just rely on the deep aquifer for non-potable. We can use that and use the intermediate wells, which, as you say, will not be good for potable water needs, but (as I say) would be fine for irrigation.”
If we turn to the Sacramento River for a significant percentage of our water needs, regardless of whether they are inside or out, we don’t need to worry about separating water use. That’s the whole point of conjunctive water use.
So you are advocating the West Sac option.
Which appears to be more expensive, but you seem to be advocating trying to reduce the size even further. The size of what we bring in is basically determined by the size of the pipe we bring over. I don’t think there is any way to reduce the costs substantially, other than intentionally sizing the supply line down, but Matt could answer that.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Although I got no decipherable answer from Matt Williams or any other sel-styled water mavens when I asked for a breakdown of water usage in Davis, I am very confident that the majority of the water we use in Davis is not for interior household usage.”[/i]
Rich, posing my question about an ideal solution appears to have borne fruit. I’m sorry I was in meetings all day and was unable to respond before now, but you and Don have done superbly. Your solution is indeed novel, and quite interesting, I would like to talk with you more about it.
Regarding your comment above, I posted an answer to you in that thread explaining that I had a thorough modeling spreadsheet in Excel that has the volume information, and that it would be far more productive to sit down and use its modeling capabilities to answer your questions . . . and proposed that we get together in person to do so. I also sent you a personal e-mail at that time reiterating that offer. I didn’t hear from you thereafter either here in the Vanguard or via e-mail, so I let the subject drop. Please accept my renewal of that offer to meet in person and to review the data I have. Your questions are very good ones, and I would love to explore them together with you. I will resend you an e-mail, but if it doesn’t arrive please feel free to send me one at [url]mattwill@pacbell.net[/url]
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”I base that conclusion on the extremely high number of gallons allegedly used on average every day in Davis–2 million gallons or roughly 185 gallons per person. If you add up the average number of times a person flushes the toilet, the amount used in a shower, the amount used for cleaning and cooking and so on, it is nowhere near 185 gallons per person. It’s not half that. That number obviously includes great amounts used outside of the house, including water used for private and public irrigation.”[/i]
The 2011 gallons per person per day was 152 (documented in the proceedings and minutes of the Natural Resources Commission) rather than 185. However, with that said, your point is still a good one. National standards indicate that 60 gpcd is a reasonable indoor usage. Bob Dunning has argued that 75 gpcd is a more reasonable number, but even in Bob’s scenario 152 is more than double 75. I’ll repost the information I posted in response to you in a prior thread that walks you from 185 down to 152.
Rich, here was the response I posted in a prior thread addressing your question.
[quote]Matt Williams
09/19/12 – 11:00 AM
…
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 wonder where the rest is going?” to “Where are we getting the 313.4 gpcd to 335.3 gpcd that we need to meet our existing peak demand levels?” 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.[/quote]
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Clearly, the water which goes into sewage treatment must be (soon enough) higher quality water, allowing for higher quality outflow from our sewage treatment plant. Thus, ideally, I would like to see Davis purchase water from West Sacramento for our interior water needs. [b]I am certain that we can strike a deal with West Sac which provides us interior quality treated water for less than we will be able to get by way of the WDCWA. West Sac has nothing to lose by selling us water.[/b]”[/i]
Rich, there is a lot to like in your proposal, and as much as I respect Don Shor and his knowledge about water, I found myself shaking my head at a number of his comments. I could be wrong, but in my opinion, the vast majority of irrigation water goes [u]neither[/u] to the wastewater sewage system [u]nor[/u] to the stormwater drainage (storm sewer) system. It percolates down into the soil. Irrigation water that runs out into the street gutters goes into the storm sewer system as the result of poorly set up irrigation, but I don’t think that is any more than 25% of all irrigation water (if that). The costs of dual piping is the chief fiscal obstacle to achieving your “ideal” solution. I really do appreciate the fact that you indeed did take me up on both the spirit and the letter of my question.
For me the real challenge that your solution faces has to do with your bolded words above, because while I don’t really disagree with your statement that West Sac has nothing to lose by selling us water, I also really don’t think they have anything to gain either. The post quoted below was in that same thread where you missed my water volume answer above. In my comments to davisite2 I outline the almost complete lack of a fiscal incentive for West Sac in a Davis deal. Since I made the comments pasted below I was at a SACOG meeting in which West Sac talked to the other regional cities about what they were doing to escape the economic doldrums. They can be criticized fro being overly optimistic, but they feel that they will have generated enough new water customers in the next 3-6 years that the excess capacity that is currently available to Davis (if we had a way to get it across the Causeway) will no longer be available at the time when Davis is finally ready to actually take delivery of the water 3-6 years from now.
[quote]Matt Williams
09/19/12 – 09:30 AM
…
davisite2 said . . .
“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.”
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?[/quote]
Rich, that conversation about West Sac concluded with the following two posts. .
[quote]Matt Williams
09/19/12 – 03:18 PM
…
davisite2 said . . .
“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’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 now for us and we will begin paying you for doing that later. 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.[/quote]
and . . .
[quote]Matt Williams
09/19/12 – 03:26 PM
…
davisite2 said . . .
“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 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 What’s In It For Me 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.[/quote]
[i]”the vast majority of irrigation water goes neither to the wastewater sewage system nor to the stormwater drainage (storm sewer) system. It percolates down into the soil”
[/i]
It doesn’t matter what percentage it is. It’s a lot of gallons, some goes into the sanitary sewer, some of the stormwater drainage goes into the Bypass, and if it is groundwater it all violates or will violate the increasingly stringent water standards for one or more of the constituents of concern.
Don, your answer confuses me. Can you help me out of my confusion? Are you saying that the SWRCB is going to start monitoring irrigation sprinkler heads in lawns and gardens? I can understand the SWRCB monitoring wastewater treatment plant outflows. I can understand the SWRCB monitoring storm sewer discharge points. Those are what I think of as “point sources” that are representative of the collective actions of the community. Somehow monitoring sprinkler heads seems to fall into another category. Further the cost of such a monitoring program would be significant.
As I said, can you help me out of my confusion?
My comments have nothing to do with sprinkler heads. You can look at the discharge permit. The treated water from the sewer system and the water from the stormdrain system both ultimately drain into Willow Slough. The basis of the regulations that is at the root of Davis and Woodland water problems is the Regional Water Board’s Basin Plan, which is itself based on the Delta plan. We can fiddle around with where the water is going, but if it’s coming from the ground here it ultimately is problematic.
We have to get away from ground water because the groundwater violates the state water quality regulations. I don’t know how many gallons go through the storm sewer system compared to the 7.5 million gallons a day that the current discharge permit allows from the municipal sewer system. I could look it up, but it’s probably not important. The point is we need to get away from the groundwater to the greatest extent possible.
Thank you for that clarification Don.
This thread is winding down, so I’ll probably end up posting this next time the topic arises. But this is what I am getting at in the discussion above.
The impetus for our surface water project is the water quality of the groundwater and the effect it has on our effluent and runoff. Water from the shallower wells (intermediate aquifer) has too much of some constituents. Water from the deeper wells (deep aquifer) has less of those, but as much of some others. The timing of the regulations that are driving this change to surface water requires us to get away from shallower wells soon. The very likely tightening of regulations of the other constituents means that we will need to reduce our use of the deeper wells within several years.
The basis of it all is the impact of effluents on the Delta. Selenium and salinity are the primary concern, with boron as another constituent that is present in both aquifers at high levels (and there are other constituents of concern as well). The Delta is being regulated at the federal level, so regulations are not likely to be flexible. Implementation of many of the water quality standards is at the state level, so compliance can be subject to postponement if bona fide mitigation/prevention measures are in place. But that just postpones the expense.
If you are looking at the Davis water situation on a 30 – 50 year timeline, any further dollars expended on our well system are probably wasted. Many of the shallow wells are nearing the end of their useful lives. Replumbing or mandating dual plumbing in new construction would be relying on a water source that is likely to diminish. It would be an added expense with little value.
We have now drilled some deeper wells so that the shortest-term quality issues are manageable. So we could delay our transition to surface water, do it more gradually than otherwise. But we ultimately need to get to surface water for a high percentage of our water supply. We can’t drill any more deeper wells. We have enough deep wells to get adequate capacity if we bring in some amount of surface water, mix it with our well water, and manage our discharge carefully. But bear in mind that the regulations are almost certain to be tightened steadily.
Ultimately we are going to have to go to surface water for the majority of our water supply. The cost of each option is relatively fixed as a facilities cost, not a metered cost (even though it will be billed as a metered cost to the end users). Reducing the size based on a mix of surface and ground water, assuming very slow population growth, and assuming high levels of conservation, can lead to supply shortages in ten to twenty years. Then the added cost of expanding the facilities will make the current focus on small incremental cost savings seem short sighted.
So the key questions to me are:
What is the lowest cost that gets us to the greatest amount of surface water over the next 30 – 50 years?
In looking at any alternative, are we trading short-term savings for higher long-term costs? In other words, are we deferring expenses that would be cheaper if we accepted them now?
Excellent post Don.