The Vanguard was out on Saturday morning at the Davis Farmer’s Market and collected the first round of literature from both the Yes on Measure I and the No on Measure I folks.
As we noted yesterday, the literature is presented today without editorial comment. Fact Checking of the issues raised will be occurring and the Vanguard will present the findings as they become available.
Yes on Measure I Material
FAQ
Why is this project needed now?
Davis is one of only a very few cities in California that still relies entirely on groundwater. In the past, groundwater was good and plentiful enough to meet community needs, as well as state and federal water quality regulations. By itself, groundwater isn’t good enough anymore to meet anticipated state water quality and wastewater discharge regulations. The quality of local groundwater supplies is getting worse. Our groundwater has an increasing amount of contaminents that threaten our environment and public health. Davis cannot meet anticipated future regulations for the water coming into homes, or for water returned to the environment. We cannot afford to wait. Delaying the project or doing nothing at all are not options.
What are the benefits of the project?
The many benefits include health and safety of drinking water, reduced costs of wear and tear on water using appliances, compliance with wastewater discharge requirements, and environmental benefits associated with improvements to discharged wastewater. Resulting improvements in the quality of treated wastewater will advance environmental stewardship in the Yolo Bypass, and lower wastewater treatment costs from what they otherwise would be in the future.
Why can’t we continue to use groundwater as our sole water source? Isn’t there plenty of groundwater?
It is getting more and more difficult to meet demands for water use and water quality regulations using existing infrastructure. A number of groundwater wells in Davis and Woodland have been shut down and destroyed because they no longer work and can’t be fixed, or because they compromise water quality and public health. Even with major improvements to groundwater facilities (wells and pumps, for example), we would still fall short of meeting future water quality regulations for drinking water and treated wastewater. Reliance on 100% groundwater is shortsighted, as deteriorated wells are expensive to continually replace or upgrade. It’s the quality of the water – not the quantity – that is driving the shift from groundwater to surface water. We need a higher-quality source of water.
Did Davis get opinions from independent experts and consultants before taking on this project?
Yes! Independent professional studies commissioned by the Davis City Council repeatedly confirmed this project as the least-costly option for meeting drinking water and wastewater quality regulations, and ensuring that water is always available when needed. A panel of nationally-recognized drinking water experts was convened in 2008 by the National Water Research Institute and their results were provided in a written report. A similar independent evaluation was completed in early 2009 by retired UC Davis engineering professors Ed Schroeder and George Tchobanoglous (click here to read the report).
Most recently, the broadly representative citizens on our Water Advisory Committee (WAC) conducted exhaustive studies of all possible alternatives. The WAC unanimously agreed that Davis must add surface water. Our City Council unanimously approved this project as the best fiscally and environmentally sustainable solution.
Won’t the project encourage new development and growth?
Even without new homes and residents, our community would still be required to improve the quality of our drinking water. The water supply project is designed to provide water that meets state and federal regulations, not to encourage growth and development. Davis residents will always need safe drinking water, and our community will always be required to meet water quality and wastewater discharge regulations, regardless of growth.
If I vote “no” on the water project, will my water rates stay the same as they are now?
Water rates are going to significantly increase – with or without the water project. The city has been borrowing money on an existing line of credit to pay for its crumbling infrastructure, and cannot continue such a course of action any longer. If there is no project, Davis runs the risk of being out of compliance with federal and state regulatory requirements now and in the future, which could result in costly fines that could be as expensive as the surface water project itself. Our neignbors in Dixon and Woodland have already paid such fines for being out of compliance with regulatory requirements.
No on Measure I Material
CITIZENS FOR CLEAN, RELIABLE, AFFORDABLE WATER NO ON ‘MEASURE I
Every community deserves clean, reliable, affordable water that is paid for equitably. Unfortunately, the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project proposed by Measure I fails to deliver that.
It’s too expensive. By 2018, single-family water bills could reach $137/month, more than triple the current rates, giving Davis among the most expensive water statewide. Annual utility bills could cost homeowners more than $2,500 per year, unduly burdening families, adversely affecting the 10ea:1 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 should Davis subsidize Woodland’s outsized development plans?
It was rushed incomplete to the ballot. Measure I does not give any project specifics, ultimate costs, or rates. The Proposition 218 process is inadequate since it excludes renters. And the 218 process win take place after we vote on the project. Why are we being asked to vote on a project when no details, costs or rates are specified in the ballot measure?
No water supply or regulatory emergency exists. River water is not needed to meet our discharge requirements. River water will not lower the costs of wastewater treatment. And, contrary to some assertions, we will not lose our water rights if we do not move forward with this project now. With the addition of deep aquifer wells to our system in recent years, our water quality has improved. Modest improvements in our groundwater management should keep Davis compliant for years to come with safe, clean, affordable water.
There are viable alternatives. With the rush to get this project on the ballot at a special election in March, viable alternatives were given little consideration. The responsible, most cost-effective solution is a regional partnership with West Sacramento and Woodland, or with West Sacramento al.one (costing far less). We have time to implement a more efficient and affordable approach. Let’s seize that opportunity.
NO on Measure I -It Triples User Water Costs
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 may reach $ 137/mo, more than triple current costs. An on-going waste-water plant up-grade of similar cost will push utility bills to over $3,000 per year, burdening families, adversely affecting the local economy, and the funding for schools, parks, playfields, and pools. Financing this $125 million river-water facility costs too much.
It’s unfair. Davis users will pay ~25% more per gallon of water than Woodland’s where rates will only rise ~100% vs Davis’s ~ 200% [three-fold] increase. Calculations show that there is nearly 50% pork in the proposed increase in water revenue to $30+ million/yr, an amount equivalent to the city funding of fire and police services, parks, pools and recreation programs!
Costs are not transparent. Measure I does not explain why rates must be so high for this 12 million gallons per day [mgpd] of river water. Prop. 218 requires that user costs be no more than production costs, and that all users pay the same per gallon, as long as conservation is promoted.
Conservation by users will not reduce water bills significantly. The proposed consumption based fixed rate [CBFR] structure means that if users conserve 20%, the cost/gallon will rise by almost 20%. For schools, playfields, parks, pools, athletic clubs, etc., where conservation may be more difficult, costs will become even more punitive!
No water supply or regulatory emergency exists. River water is not necessary to meet discharge requirements; nor will it significantly lower costs of waste-water treatment, and we will not lose our water rights. We use on average ~10 mgpd, and have firm ground-water capacity of ~ 50 mgpd -more than enough to fight simultaneous fires on a hot summer day. Most of our 15-20 mgpd of summer [May-Oct.] use will be ground water, and possibly more in drought years. Beyond 4 mgpd our water rights are junior to senior, mostly Ag, users.
River water is softer, but not cleaner. Ozone treatment leaves appreciable percentages of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, etc., rarely found in deep ground water. Our deep aquifer is softer, and essentially free of nitrates and selenium found in intermediate wells, now being phased out. State DWR studies show that area ground water has not deteriorated in quantity over 50 years.
Costs are inflated: At most, doubling the rates will pay for the river-water. Financing the $125 million-12 mgpd facility and the Conaway water purchase will cost ~$10 million/yr. Present water revenues are ~$12 million/yr, so we only need to double rates. Also, there will be savings of several million/yr from intermediate-well shut-downs and reduced pumping of others.
There are better ways forward. For example, West Sacramento has spare capacity of 30-40 mgpd of treated river water, which they offered Davis on a long-term contract at much less cost. Council said NO; insisting on ownership, but now considers shipping wastewater to Woodland!
Please join us, Citizens for Clean, Reliable Affordable Water, in voting NO on Measure 1. For more information, please see www.noonmeasurei.org. And please send in a NO vote on your Prop. 218 rate-notice; otherwise you counts as a YES vote for the ~ 3-fold cost increase!
I know reading long detailed documents produced by experts in the water/wastewater engineering discipline it is not want everyone wants to do but they are the facts supported by science. I post some more links today to refute the claims presented by the no side.
Water Supply Analysis:
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/TM_WDCWA_WaterSupplyAnalysis_1.pdf[/url]
Independent Anaalysis of Saramento River Water and Propossed Treatment Process:
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Schroeder_Tchobanoglous_Study_WDCWA.pdf[/url]
Water Source Trend Comparison:
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Sac_Valley_Water_Source_Future_Comparison102512.pdf[/url]
Summarry of Alternatives:
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/111511_tb5_TM_DW_Summary_3.pdf[/url]
David: just want to correct the record. The Yes has been in publically-funded campaign mode for 15 years, pushing this project that was originally planned for the doubling of the Davis population that was specified in the 1988 General Plan. Nothing has changed.
The No on I, all volunteers, has been in campaign mode for a month.
“Increased withdrawals from the deep aquifer may result in significant contamination with constituents from the intermediate aquifer or subsidence due to collapse of the empty pores.” Review of City of Davis Water Resources Master Plan prepared by Edward Schroeder and George Tchobanoglous
The issue of deep aquifer contamination and subsidence seems to be completely ignored by the NO folks in their claim that we can just tap the deep aquifer and it will be all good.
“Council said NO; insisting on ownership”
It is important to note that the WAC reviewed the idea of becoming a customer of West Sac and rejected it.
it is also important to note that some of the reason for that rejection is that the process was cut short due to woodland’s timeline. there is probably a viable back up option for davis to go to west sacramento if this measure fails.
[i]there is probably a viable back up option for davis to go to west sacramento if this measure fails.
[/i]
The terms of that option were presented to the negotiators earlier this year.
[url]http://davisvanguard.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5768:west-sacramento-is-now-open-to-a-19-million-dollar-water-offer&Itemid=79[/url]
“David: just want to correct the record. The Yes has been in publically-funded campaign mode for 15 years, pushing this project that was originally planned for the doubling of the Davis population that was specified in the 1988 General Plan. Nothing has changed
I’ll ask again. If as you say, this project has been around for 15 years,, how is it that you feel this
is a “rushed” decision ?
while i’m not michael harrington, i don’t think there is nearly the contradiction you imply. the water planning process meandered slowly up until the formation of the jpa. but the council jumped from that in 2009 to the project in 2011 without doing a water rate study, questionable consultant reports, etc. in my view there are two legitimate points where you can claim the project was rushed – september 6, 2011, and while the wac looked at the project over a year, it really was not enough time to get into the detail needed.
Medwoman: the WAC members requested a lot of data that was not provided. The WAC was not provided with the project costing data spreadsheets. The WAC staff and consultant supplied charts and graphs lacked assumptions built in.
We know the proposed rates generate far more money than what is needed even for a $116 m project, so the question is: what slush fund are they creating with our money?
Saylor and Souza never expected any organized opposition, so for years they got whatever they wanted in the JPA set up and the project. The WAC helped some, but mostly was a rubber stamp for the JPA design.
Now the water drops are beginning to fall ….
[i]”… what slush fund are they creating with our money?
… but mostly was a rubber stamp for the JPA design.” [/i]
Innuendo and disparagement.
What information do you need, Michael? What would help you come to a more informed decision?
Michael, can you remind everyone again how much has been saved so far by the referendum and slowing down the rushed process?
Rusty49: Gushers of ratepayer cash were saved by that little referendum.
Actually, if rates had been increased in 2011 we’d already be paying for the new water project.
and quite possibly harmed the economy and local business.
We’re going to build a surface water project eventually. All of the experts agree that we need to go to surface water. So the question is: do you want to start paying for it now, or later?
i see it a bit like the debt issue. we are going to have to pay back the national debt, but to cut spending during a weak recovery is not fiscally prudent. has there been any kind of fiscal analysis done to see impact on struggling davis downtown businesses?
I wrote this in September, but it still seems pertinent.
—-
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 plans for 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?
Rates are going to go up regardless of whether we build the surface water project or continue to use well water. The impact on individual businesses will vary depending on how water-intensive they are. That is true regardless of whether we build the surface project or continue to fund well system improvements.
that’s a phony argument. the magnitude of the rate increases are considerably different. the timing of the increases is different as well.
No, it’s not a phony argument. We are going to need surface water eventually. So it’s just a matter of when we are going to pay for it.
[quote]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? [/quote]
but you don’t ask a lot of other questions that are just as critical, for example what are the economic costs to going now during the end of the recession/ beginning of recovery versus going in the future.
what are the impacts to low income residents and fixed income residents.
those have to be part of any sensible calculation.
i’m not against the project don, but I think your analysis overlooks a lot of pressing issues that will matter to people who make the decision which way to vote now.
[i]for example what are the economic costs to going now during the end of the recession/ beginning of recovery versus going in the future. [/i]
Do you believe borrowing and construction costs are going to be lower in the future?
[i]what are the impacts to low income residents and fixed income residents.
[/i]
Adverse in any case, unfortunately. That’s why I support tiered rates.
i believe that the costs will be roughly parallel to what they are today but the impact of those costs may well be less when we are not in a fragile economy.
“but you don’t ask a lot of other questions that are just as critical, for example what are the economic costs to going now during the end of the recession/ beginning of recovery versus going in the future. “
Lower interest rates and more jobs in a weak economy if we go now.
Toad: funny, no one is talking about those financing costs, or tax free interest bonds versus taxable, and what that does to the public fisc.
Here, this project lacks the 2/3rds voter buy-in for tax free bonds that pay a much lower interest rate, so the City is charging ahead without maximum voter buy-in at the highest price.
Because the project proponents are not taking the time to get that 2/3rds buy-in and public belief that the project is necessary and reasonable, the ratepayers are being overcharged for the financing costs.
Mike you condemn them for taking the path of least resistance while opposing them every which way. You could reverse and help get the 2/3 vote and save us more money. Now that you have gotten all the fat cut out getting reduced tax free municipal bond funding would be helpful so if you really were concerned about the cost you wouldn’t be such a rock in the river on the bond issuance side.
Growth issue said . . .
“I don’t think there is nearly the contradiction you imply. the water planning process meandered slowly up until the formation of the jpa. but the council jumped from that in 2009 to the project in 2011 without doing a water rate study, questionable consultant reports, etc. in my view there are two legitimate points where you can claim the project was rushed – september 6, 2011, and while the wac looked at the project over a year, it really was not enough time to get into the detail needed.”
The point you make GI is legitimate with a couple of corrections. The process did proceed slowly from 1994 though 2009, but that was a logical result of the water right application processing by the State of California. Absent any water right there would be no project to consider or even plan. The Council “jumping” in the 2009 through 2011 timeframe was a logical result of the information that they were getting from the SWQCB that the 17-year water right application process was actually within sight of the finish line.
Further, it is accurate that a new2005 = 196.0
2006 = 194.0
2007 = 197.0
2008 = 189.0
That translates to a five year average of 196.2
The WAC discussions included:
2009 = 169.0 gallons per person per day
2010 = 158.0
2011 = 152.0
That translates to a five year average of 173.0
That indeed is a very different picture that the WAC saw, but is it one that we could have expected the consultants to have predicted? For me the answer to that question is no . . . especially when you factor in the reality that 2009, 2010 and 2011 were all “wet years” that required minimal irrigation. The year-to-date numbers for 2012 reflect a gpcd value of 165.0 in large part because 2012 was a “dry year” that required more irrigation.
So, bottom-line the consultants used the data that was available to them in 2009 and came up with an 18 mgd plant size to support that combination of population and consumption. In 2012, armed with additional data, the consultants probably would have recommended a 12 mgd plant size just as the WAC did.