The water initiative is now called Measure I. The Vanguard now has a copy of the impartial analysis, authored by City Attorney Harriet Steiner, and the arguments for and against. All five councilmembers signed the arguments in favor of Measure I.
The arguments against Measure I were signed by two WAC members – Mark Siegler and Michael Bartolic, former Mayor Sue Greenwald, former Councilmember Michael Harrington, and Pam Nieberg, co-Chair of the 2011 Water Referendum.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
By Harriet Steiner
Measure I, if approved by a majority of the voters voting on it, will adopt Ordinance No. 2399 which directs the City to pursue the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project. The City would do so as a participant in the Woodland Davis Clean Water Authority (WDCWA), a joint powers agency whose members are Davis and the City of Woodland.
This proposed Project would provide 12 million gallons per day (MGD) of surface water from the Sacramento River to Davis water customers and 18 MGD to Woodland customers. The Davis water system now relies solely on groundwater. If this Project is completed, the City’s water system would primarily use surface water and continue to use groundwater when water demand is at its highest.
The Project includes the construction, operation and maintenance of a water intake facility (that would take water from the Sacramento River), a water treatment facility and pipelines. A description of the Project is available from the City and at www.wdcwa.com. The water intake facility would be built and operated in conjunction with Reclamation District (RD) No. 2035 and would replace RD 2035’s current intake facility. The water treatment facility and pipelines would be constructed, owned and operated by WDCWA for the benefit of Davis and Woodland. The two cities would continue to independently operate their individual water systems.
Davis, Woodland and RD 2035 would each fund its pro rata share of the Project. Davis’ total Project construction cost was previously estimated to be approximately $120,000,000; however, current estimates are lower.
Measure I directs the City Council to continue to evaluate the Project, including sizing, cost sharing and timing. Final project costs will depend on the design, construction and operation proposals received, and the contracts approved. Measure I provides that the Council, after a noticed public hearing, may modify Davis’ participation in the Project or terminate its participation in the Project, if the Council determines, based on all relevant factors, that the Project’s costs would not be in the best interests of the City, residents, and ratepayers.
The Project will require water rate increases to Davis water customers, which will require compliance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution, also known as Proposition 218. Notice of the proposed rate increases, public hearing and protest rights will be sent to Davis water customers in compliance with Proposition 218. In Davis, water customers are owners of property receiving water service from the City. If a majority of the water customers file timely written protests, the water rates increases required to support the funding of the project will not be approved, and Davis would not move forward with the Project. Proposed water rate information is available from the City and at www.cityofdavis.org.
If adopted by the voters, Ordinance No. 2399 could only be amended or repealed by the voters of the City at an election called for that purpose.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I
By Mayor Joe Krovoza, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, and Councilmembers Rochelle Swanson, Lucas Frerichs, and Brett Lee
The Davis Woodland Water Supply Project will provide our city with a long-term, sustainable supply of clean water. It will draw new surface water from the Sacramento River to supplement our existing groundwater supply, providing higher quality water to customers in Davis and Woodland.
The City of Davis has always relied solely on groundwater. Over time, our groundwater supply has deteriorated in quantity and quality, and we have had to drill additional and deeper wells. In Davis1 1989 Water Master Plan, we recognized that groundwater alone was neither fiscally nor environmentally sustainable. The city began planning to add surface water supply to create a “conjunctive use” system of surface water for our primary source, and groundwater for summer peaks and backup use. New surface water will decrease concentrations of salt and selenium in our wastewater. These minerals are costly to remove and have adverse environmental impacts on waterways and wetlands.
The proposed project has been thoroughly examined by the Davis Water Advisory Committee. The committee ultimately recommended this project as the best solution to improve water quality and system reliability. The committee also limited project capacity, which reduced estimated construction costs to $114 million.
If this ballot measure is approved, the project will be advanced. Sharing costs with Woodland saves Davis millions of dollars compared to building a Davis-only project. The current economic climate for competitive construction bids is excellent.
Increased water rates to finance the project are being proposed using the State Constitution’s required Proposition 218 process. Complete rate information is explained at www.cityofdavis.org
We are increasing community-wide water conservation measures to prolong the useful life of our groundwater and surface water resources.
It is imperative for the welfare of our community that we establish a reliable water system. Please join us in voting YES to support the future of Davis.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST MEAUSURE I
By Sue Greenwald, Mark Siegler, Michael Bartolic, Michael Harrington, Pamela Nieberg
Every community deserves clean, reliable, affordable water that is paid for equitably.
Unfortunately, the project proposed by Measure I fails to deliver that.
- It’s too expensive. By 2018, single-family water bills (18 ccf) may reach $137/month, more than triple current rates, giving Davis among the most expensive water statewide. Annual utility bills will likely cost homeowners over $2,500 per year, unduly burdening families, adversely affecting the local economy, making it more difficult to pay for our schools and parks, and ultimately even threatening our tree canopy.
- It’s unfair. Davis will pay 30 percent more per gallon of water than Woodland pays. The Davis Water Advisory Committee did not endorse the project with this inequitable cost-sharing agreement. Why subsidize Woodland’s outsized development plans?
- It was rushed incomplete to the ballot. Measure I doesn’t give project specifics, costs, or rates. The Proposition 218 process is inadequate since it excludes renters. All voters deserve to vote on a project with all details, costs, and rates fully specified.
No water supply or regulatory emergency exists. Surface water is not necessary to meet discharge requirements, it will not lower costs of wastewater treatment, and we will not lose our water rights. Modest improvements in groundwater management should keep Davis compliant for years to come with safe, clean, affordable water.
We cannot rely on the same vested interests who claimed we needed to spend almost $100 million more than necessary on a wastewater plant, and that we needed 50 percent more surface water than they now admit necessary.
There is a better way forward. The responsible, most cost-effective solution is a regional partnership with West Sacramento and Woodland, or West Sacramento alone (costing far less).
We have time to implement a more efficient approach. Let’s seize that opportunity.
Please join us in voting NO.
Surprised at the second bullet in the statement on “No”.
First time I have seen it stated 30% more, how is that calculated? And what is the background if the statement about the WAC?
That one caught my eye as well and I was going to check into that one. My guess is that they are using the fixed costs that are being split 50-50 in their calculation.
Yes Soda, that got my attention too. Why should Davis pay 30% more per gallon than Woodland?
David:
“My guess is that they are using the fixed costs that are being split 50-50 in their calculation.”
That shouldn’t make a difference since Woodland’s population is roughly the same size as Davis.
That’s not the issue. Woodland gets 60 percent of the water. The costs related to capacity are split 60-40. But the costs for non capacity issues like permitting are split evenly.
Thanks David, I didn’t know that Woodland was taking 60% of the water so that might be the reason for our higher per gallon price. That being said, if Woodland is getting 60% of the water why aren’t they paying 60% of the fixed costs?
They determined that legal fees, easements, administrative and engineering fees were independent of capacity.
It still sounds to me like the people of Davis are going to be partially subsidizing Woodlander’s water rates. How is that fair? It would be two people going in together to buy a car and splitting the cost but in our contract one has useage of the car 60% of the time while the other only gets it 40%. Who would agree to that?
Let’s suppose, there is an access fee for getting access to the water. It costs $50,000. We have to pay that same fee if we took 1 gallon or 1 million. So should that fee be divided evenly or split 50-50?
David, I see your point but is there enough fees like that to merit Davis paying 30% more per gallon? I doubt it.
That is what I want to look at from both angles – what are the fees and what is the cost?
[i]”No water supply or regulatory emergency exists. Surface water is not necessary to meet discharge requirements…[/i]”
This statement is not true.
If it were not necessary to use surface water to meet the pending regulatory, the WAC would not have (unanimously?) recommended conjunctive use. Conjunctive use = surface water + ground water. Sue Greenwald repeatedly on this blog acknowledged the need for eventually bringing in surface water. The other two signatories above were on the WAC.
The first regulatory issue kicks in, I recall, in 2017 for Davis; sooner for Woodland. So I suppose it’s a matter of your definition of ’emergency’. But there are only two options for dealing with the tightening of the regulations.
1. Continue heavy reliance on the aquifers, or
2. Bring in surface water.
The regulations I am discussing are already described in our current discharge permit. The way Davis is complying with them is by continuing progress for an alternative source of water.
So to the four people who signed the ballot argument above, I pose these questions:
1. Do you advocate continued long-term use of the wells? If so, how long?
2. If you don’t, what surface water alternative are you advocating?
[i]Davis will pay 30 percent more per gallon of water than Woodland pays.
[/i]
No way.
Information concerning the fixed infrastructure cost of the JPA project when compared to the infrastructure cost of a conduit from West Sac to Davis would be helpful in deciding which project offers more savings when the amount of water purchased is reduced through conservation. The cost of developer’s demand for future increased water supplies would be more politically transparent when more clearly connected to the volume of water purchased from West Sac.
[i]There is a better way forward. The responsible, most cost-effective solution is a regional partnership with West Sacramento and Woodland, or West Sacramento alone (costing far less).[/i]
West Sacramento doesn’t want a ‘regional partnership’ with us, and the signatories all know that. So the only way we will get water from West Sac is by purchasing it from them, at their price, on their terms.
[b]A ‘regional partnership’ with Woodland is exactly what the voters are being asked to approve.[/b] Barring a joint venture, the only way Davis will get water from Woodland is by purchasing it from Woodland, at their price, on their terms.
So I ask the signatories: what are the “project specifics, costs, or rates” of your proposed alternative?
davisite:[i] compared to the infrastructure cost of a conduit from West Sac[/i]
Why would we build a conduit form West Sac? Is your proposed alternative that Davis buy its water from West Sacramento? That option was explored, negotiations were fruitless. So exactly what are you proposing as an alternative?
[i]”… ultimately even threatening our tree canopy.”
[/i]
I’m pretty sure I could be qualified as an expert witness on this topic in a court of law. I doubt the ballot signatories could. I would be happy to analyze any supporting data for this particular assertion.
Except you are as biased on this issue as they are
I can tell you what the landscape coefficients are with respect to evapotranspiration for different tree species, what their irrigation needs are over time, and how local soils retain moisture through the growing season. With an overview of the city’s tree canopy species, I could give you a reasonable answer as to whether the assertion is accurate that reduced water use would threaten a significant percentage of the tree canopy in Davis. The answer isn’t just yes or no.
Or I could just make stuff up. That’s certainly easier, and more politically effective.
No argument: [i]There is a better way forward. The responsible, most cost-effective solution is a regional partnership with West Sacramento and Woodland, or West Sacramento alone (costing far less).[/i]
What evidence is there that this would be a realistic and low cost alternative? And what evidence is there that West Sac. would cooperate in a low cost alternative? What is the incentive for them?
Joe Friday would say . . .
In calendar year 2011 the 14,736 Single Family Residences used 2,530,612 ccf, which works out to 14.3 ccf per month.
Since we bill in whole number increments of ccf, a user of 14 ccf per month paid a 3/4 inch fixed fee of $11.50 per month, a use fee of $21.00 (14 x $1.50), for a total monthly bill of $32.50. At 15 ccf per month that bill would be $34.00.
Based on the most recent rate calculations by Bartle Wells, effective May 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 a 14 ccf per year account would pay a total monthly bill of $34.89. At 15 ccf per month that bill would be $36.86.
Based on the most recent rate calculations by Bartle Wells, effective January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 a 14 ccf per year account would pay a total monthly bill of $86.68. At 15 ccf per month that bill would be $92.03.
The above rates are not yet approved, and are therefore subject to some change.
It is interesting to note that a user of 5 ccf per month (there were 1,609 residences in Davis using that much or less) currently pays $19.00 per month and will pay $17.91 per month starting May 1, 2013, and $40.38 per month during 2018.
End of today’s Friday report.
Hi Matt
Can you agree or refute the 30% bullet and the statement about the WAC that I raised this am.
I respect your opinion 🙂
SODA, here are the numbers that were most recently sent to all the WAC members
The total estimated cost of the water production and water distribution project is $245.01 million.
Lets look at distribution costs first. $14.66 million is for upgrades to the existing “Davis Local” water distribution system and $16.38 million for upgrades to the existing “Woodland Local” water distribution system. Neither of those items are costs that should be subject to a proportional split. In each case those costs are paid 100% by the respective City. That brings the net project costs to $213.97 million.
Of that $213.97 million total, $31.51 is for treated water distribution infrastructure, which isn’t “cost of water” either If we set that treated water distribution infrastructure cost aside for a moment (for discussion later), the net project costs come down to $182.47 million which is the cost of water production that applies to anyone regardless of whether they live in Davis or live in Woodland.
Of the $182.47 million, $76.87 million goes to Davis and $105.61 million goes to Woodland, which is a 58-42 split. Of the 182.47 million, $142.29 is split 60-40, $11.42 million is split 50-50, and $28.76 million is slit at the old 54-46 split because it was either actually spent under those terms or reserved as Capital Contingency at those terms.
So the net bottom-line difference between 76.87-105.61 and 60-40 is a difference of $3.88 million, which is 2% of the $182.47 million total.
Does that help answer your question?
No not to the bulleted point of water that our water will cost 30% more/gallon than in Woodland. And that WAC is not in favor.
“That option was explored, negotiations were fruitless. So exactly what are you proposing as an alternative?”
Not true.. Even at West Sac’s asking price for the water(and there was apparently no effort made to counter with something less than West Sac’s initial asking price that might be acceptable to them), this option comes in at a lower cost than the JPA-Woodland project. In addition, Davis may be able to significantly reduce its payments to West Sac with water conservation. This would be especially significant if the fixed costs for the West Sac option are significantly less than with the JPA project.
SODA, I can’t speak for the WAC as a whole, and I don’t think the ballot argument has any ability to do that either.
With that said, the wording of the argument, [i]”The Davis Water Advisory Committee did not endorse the project with this inequitable cost-sharing agreement”[/i] is neither right nor wrong. The WAC clearly did endorse the project. It endorsed it with conditions. The question is whether those conditions have been met.
Regarding the statement, “Davis will pay 30 percent more per gallon of water than Woodland pays,” that is also neither right nor wrong. If you go to the City of Woodland website you will find that effective 7/1/2012 Woodland rate payers pay $24.00 per month as opposed to Davis rate payers who pay $11.50 per month. Both cities currently charge $1.50 per ccf. So based on that is the statement correct?
When you wrestle with the natural “Why?” that follows the rates information above, one of the logical points is that their distribution infrastructure is different than Davis’ is . . . and has different local costs. Which takes us to the fact that 30% is not 2%.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Not true.. Even at West Sac’s asking price for the water(and there was apparently no effort made to counter with something less than West Sac’s initial asking price that might be acceptable to them), this option comes in at a lower cost than the JPA-Woodland project. In addition, Davis may be able to significantly reduce its payments to West Sac with water conservation. This would be especially significant if the fixed costs for the West Sac option are significantly less than with the JPA project.”[/i]
You make that statement as if you have firsthand knowledge about the ebb and flow of the West Sac negotiations.
I wonder what Brett Lee would have to say about the “no effort” that was made to counter West Sac’s offer.
For the record, West Sac’s initial offer was made on September 17, 2012 for a $12.66 million Connection Fee and a term to end in 2032, with Davis funding necessary future Bryte Bend Water Treatment Plant expansion. On October 12th after counter offer discussions, West Sac modified its offer to a $19.4 million Connection Fee and permanent customer status.
Matt: [i]So based on that is the statement correct? [/i]
Can you describe any instance in which a Davis ratepayer using the same amount of water would pay 30% more than a Woodland ratepayer?
Don, too many other variables to make that a useful question,IMO
David: Then the statement “Davis will pay 30 percent more per gallon of water than Woodland pays” is not true, correct? Would that make it a distortion, or a fabrication?
I’m working with Matt on figuring out the exact breakdown. I would argue it is misleading even if technically accurate with respect to this project.
Matt’s statement indicates Woodland pays twice as much as Davis now. My initial point yesterday was to try to clarify a couple of confusing statements in the bullets at the get-go, before the posturing begins.
Thx for trying….