One of the big questions in the water debate is the estimation of maintenance costs to the existing water distribution system.
In May of 2011, the teams of Brown and Caldwell and Kennedy-Jenks submitted a report to the city of Davis on the Water System Optimization Plan, that defines the improvements needed to optimally integrate a new surface water supply for the City of Davis.
The plan recommends improvements that would deliver surface water throughout the City and address rehabilitation, replacement, and upgrades that are needed for the existing water system.
They recommend that “the City maintain the deep aquifer wells as part of the overall water supply. The deep aquifer wells would continue to pump directly into the water distribution system.”
The cost to improving the existing water system, however, are considerable – $44.8 million over the next twenty years, or more than one-third of the cost of the surface water plant. As we see from the report, they view this not as an alternative to the surface water plant but in conjunction with the surface water plant.
The report clarifies: “The City has historically supported a robust and comprehensive maintenance program, which has included regular cycles of inspection and rehabilitation of water distribution facilities throughout the City. The improvements identified for the existing system build on the good work completed by the City by harnessing the strength of the City’s existing high quality deep groundwater supply and healthy looped distribution system to support implementation of the conjunctive use program.”
The report supports moving to a conjunctive use system, keeping in place existing groundwater infrastructure, “Implementation of the conjunctive use program will significantly reduce overall reliance upon groundwater. However, as a current 100 percent groundwater system, the City has significantly invested in its groundwater wells and it is recommended the City continue to use its groundwater infrastructure and assets where feasible, concurrent with the introduction of surface water.”
They add, “Additionally, groundwater is a readily available local resource from both the deep and intermediate aquifers and is generally less expensive to deliver to customers than surface water.”
The report recommends the city continue to “operate, maintain, and replace (where necessary) existing City deep wells within the parameters of the sustainable yield of the deep aquifer.”
Further, over time, they recommend that the city “phase out or abandon use of most of its intermediate wells for domestic supply. Maintain minimum three (3) intermediate wells for reliability and redundancy once the conjunctive use project is online and proven up.”
The report recommends the city “Institute a program to irrigate large landscaped areas such as parks, schools, greenbelts, and golf courses with groundwater from existing municipal wells converted to dedicated irrigation use or construct new dedicated irrigation wells.”
Finally, “Monitor water quality in deep wells to stay ahead of facilities that may require wellhead treatment for Title 22 regulated constituents, particularly manganese, arsenic and chromium VI. It is assumed that additional wellhead treatment will not be required within the 20 year capital improvement period covered by this Plan.”
The cost of doing so is considerable, however.
The report notes that the schedule (at that time) for “completion of the surface water treatment project is for the year 2016 at which time the… recommended pipeline improvements will need to be in place.”
They continue, “One of the underlying goals for the surface water project is to optimize the distribution of the surface water supply and thus improve drinking water quality City-wide. The goal is to provide the greatest equality in the benefit of improved water quality at the customer tap.”
They add, “Less apparent to the customer, but potentially as important is the reduction in TDS [total dissolved solids] in the wastewater system to result from importing surface water and shifting all groundwater to deep aquifer extractions. The reduction in water supply TDS will potentially provide significant avoided costs for improvements to the City wastewater treatment plant that must address TDS limits per the plant’s permit.
“It is therefore recommended that the City proceed with design and construction of the transmission mains with completion before the end of 2016 to coincide with the regional surface water treatment project.”
All of this comes with considerable cost that will be reflected in the rates. But it appears that these costs would be necessary with or without the surface water project. So, in addition to curbing the cost deficit at a rate of $3 million per year, the city would have to raise rates to fund the $44.8 million upgrades to the existing system.
As we showed earlier this week, the projection is that we will see rate increases that will produce $937 million in revenue, $461 more than the inflation-adjusted baseline revenue. Now we are starting to understand why.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Like I have been saying, the city intends to add the surface water plant on top of he current well system production, for massive new amounts of water supply for urban development. Woodland is also massively overbuilding their capacity. West Sacramento already has a large part of their huge ant sitting idle, needing a customer.
The agreement with UCD where Saylor and Souza voluntarily limited the City’s draws on the deep aquifer was poetical mpractice of the highest order and needs to be scrapped or amended .
Like I have been saying, the city intends to add the surface water plant on top of he current well system production, for massive new amounts of water supply for urban development. Woodland is also massively overbuilding their capacity. West Sacramento already has a large part of their huge ant sitting idle, needing a customer.
The agreement with UCD where Saylor and Souza voluntarily limited the City’s draws on the deep aquifer was poetical mpractice of the highest order and needs to be scrapped or amended .
[i]The agreement with UCD where Saylor and Souza voluntarily limited the City’s draws on the deep aquifer was poetical mpractice of the highest order and needs to be scrapped or amended .
[/i]
Please re-read yesterday’s thread on this topic. What you’ve just posted is beyond a distortion. It’s a lie.
And what would be the yearly maintenance costs of a new surface water system plus “upgrades” to the system over the years? We don’t know right? Or, if we do are these costs figured into to the proposed rate increases, if so what are these costs? Who will determine what the maintenance costs are and what and when upgrades are needed? Not us, the city of the Davis, but a private company.
As Michael says, we will continue to use the wells even if a surface water project is built and so won’t most of these purported costs come due anyway (whether we build the surface water project or not) or did I miss something? And/or what percent of these maintenance and upgrade costs to the well system would be avoided if we built a surface water delivery system? Answers please.
Don, I stand by my comments. The Citygave away part of its water rights for no apparent reason. That giveaway will be on our future agenda to try to remedy. Your pro urban sprawl development t team can spin it however you want.
Herman: “we will continue to use the wells even if a surface water project is built and so won’t most of these purported costs come due anyway (whether we build the surface water project or not)”
I wrote: “All of this comes with considerable cost that will be reflected in the rates. But it appears that these costs would be necessary with or without the surface water project. So, in addition to curbing the cost deficit at a rate of $3 million per year, the city would have to raise rates to fund the $44.8 million upgrades to the existing system.”
“Who will determine what the maintenance costs are and what and when upgrades are needed? Not us, the city of the Davis, but a private company. “
the maintenance costs to the existing system would not fall under the JPA, so the city would determine all of that.
“Woodland is also massively overbuilding their capacity. West Sacramento already has a large part of their huge ant sitting idle, needing a customer.
This sounds a lot like the period where each city built their own strip malls rather than a more regional approach to providing for citizen needs.
In our system,planning/policy decisions,unchecked by a vigorous populism, always tend to be in the financial interest of those who have political power/influence.
David, if the maintenance costs to the existing system are not under the JPA project which is what we are voting on, it would seem prudent to know ALL the costs to be informed. I think maybe Matt gave those yesterday but I for one am getting more and more confused…..
Thank you Matt for your untiring and non judgmental posts…..
Herman asked . . .
[i]”And what would be the yearly maintenance costs of a new surface water system plus “upgrades” to the system over the years? We don’t know right?[/i]
[b]Great question Herman. The simple answers are . . . We do know[/b]
[i]Or, if we do are these costs figured into to the proposed rate increases, if so what are these costs? [/i]
[b]The $44,801,000 shown in the Kennedy-Jenks table above are the costs. [/b]
[i]Who will determine what the maintenance costs are and what and when upgrades are needed? Not us, the city of the Davis, but a private company. [/i]
[b]Since the report was received the costs have been further refined by Dianna jensen and her Water Department staff, and then were included in the Revenue Requirement provided to Bartle Wells Associates and myself to develop and refine the rates that were presented to the WAC for its rate decision. The Water Main Replacements from the assessment total $9,099,000 and are included in the rates as follows, $722,400 in 2015, $1,538,160 in 2016, $2,182,840 in 2017, $1,486,800 in 2018, and $3,168,890 in 2019. The remaining Repair and Replacement projects total $27,916,730 and are included in the rates as follows, $1,844,440 in 2013, $4,189,860 in 2014, $2,922,080 in 2015, $638,000 in 2016, $665,500 in 2017, $2,201,220 in 2018, $7,955,630 in 2019 and $7,500,000 in 2020.
Inclusion of those costs in the rate structure as “pay as you go” items meant that the annual Revenue Requirement reaches $28,269,000 in 2018 and then does not increase for the next three years. [/b]
[i]As Michael says, we will continue to use the wells even if a surface water project is built and so won’t most of these purported costs come due anyway (whether we build the surface water project or not) or did I miss something?[/i]
[b]Yes, that is correct. We will continue to need our deep aquifer wells to meet our demand for water. All of those costs will come due. That is why the average monthly water bill for a “typical” single family residence using 20 ccf in summer and 10 ccf in winter will rise from $34 per month to $84 per month.[/b]
[i]And/or what percent of these maintenance and upgrade costs to the well system would be avoided if we built a surface water delivery system? Answers please.”[/i]
[b]None of them could be avoided. The surface water plant is needed to provide supplies that meet our demand. As I noted yesterday, Davis’ water supplies are steadily decreasing as follows:
2016 Removal of Well 20 (drilled in 1976)
2017 Removal of Wells 21 and 22 (both drilled in 1977)
2020 Removal of Well 23 (drilled in 1980) and Wells 24 and 1 (both drilled in 1982)
2021 Removal of Well 25 (drilled in 1987) and Well 27 (drilled in 1989)
2021 End of the UC Davis Intertie
2027 Removal of Well 26 (drilled in 1987)
2031 Removal of Well EM3 (drilled in 1991) [/b]
Great question Herman. The simple answers are . . . We do know . . . and Yes those costs were figured into the rates that Council approved on 12/18.
The
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Don, I stand by my comments. The City gave away part of its water rights for no apparent reason. That giveaway will be on our future agenda to try to remedy. Your pro urban sprawl development t team can spin it however you want.”[/i]
Michael, what evidence do you have that the City gave away any of its rights? There is no such evidence.
What “agreement” are you referring to? There is no agreement between UCD and the City regarding the deep aquifer.
Any agreement about the deep aquifer under Davis was agreed to by the California Legislature and Governor when they passed [i]The Water Commission Act[/i] in 1913, which was a bit before Mayor Krovoza’s time. All water in California belongs to the people of the state, and the ownership of “water rights” in California refers to a right to use water, not to ownership of the water itself. We are all governed by water law.
At any time in the future the City can find out whether they can, or can not, access additional water from the deep aquifer. All the City has to do is spend the money to assemble and file an EIR, just as they did in 2004 when EIR 2004-102043 was filed. UCD would then have to make a decision, as they did in 2004, about whether to file an objection/protest to the EIR. Faced with a formal UCD protest, the City could negotiate with UCD, as they did in 2004 resulting in the reduction of the water right amount by 50% from the original 9,000 gallons per minute down to 4,500 gallons per minute. If the negotiations do not bear fruit, then the City would have the choice of abandoning the EIR or disregarding the protest and certifying the EIR. If they do the latter, then UCD will have the choice of whether to take the City to court. Once it is in court the costs skyrocket, and the courts may well decide that the only way to resolve the dispute is to adjudicate the deep aquifer. Adjudication of a water basin or aquifer is a process that takes upwards of ten years and costs tens of millions of dollars, and there is no assurance that the adjudication will grant the City even one additional gallon of water.
All of the above translates to substantial Risk and Uncertainty regarding whether the City can get more water from the deep aquifer. It also translates to substantial Risk and Uncertainty regarding the cost of that water from the deep aquifer.
Risk and Uncertainty was the #1 reason why the WAC voted unanimously to remove the Groundwater-only option from further consideration.
[i]Don, I stand by my comments. The City gave away part of its water rights for no apparent reason. That giveaway will be on our future agenda to try to remedy. Your pro urban sprawl development t team can spin it however you want.[/i]
Yes, I’m on a ‘pro urban sprawl development team’. Good lord, Mike, is there anything you won’t say or do to stop surface water?
Don, Mike hasn’t said that what he is saying is true. He said that he “stands by his comments” meaning that he was going to keep making his comments without change. This is not the same as a declaration that what he is saying is true. He is very clever about things like this. I agree, he is a liar and clearly shows that he doesn’t care about whether people know it or not. I don’t know why the No on I allows him to be their representative.
Don, was that a rhetorical question?
“In thy foul throat thou liest.”
― William Shakespeare, Richard III
Don: I usually just let you go on and on spewing your personal attacks, liberally throwing out the “l” word, etc.
However, just as a brief response, when I started the 2011 water rate referendum, you and a few of your pro-surface plant colleagues started attacking me in viscious and personal ways. The goal was to shoot the messenger … me.
The problem you have is what we were saying about the rates in the fall 2011 were true, and the timeout we forced on the City has saved well over $120 million in ratepayer money, and forced the CC to put at least a vague description of the project on the ballot. The rates still are not on the ballot, and we will attempt to force the CC to do that at some point.
The idea that our CC would roll over and sign away most of our water rights to this critical resource directly below our feet and city limits is insane. You can say whatever you want, but much of it is our water.
I know there is a lot of water law out there about how to share a resource between jurisdictions, but from all accounts, your friends Saylor, Souza and other pro-JPA project basically rolled over with UCD and let them take away some of our rights. This issue will be thoroughly studied, and remedied.
Deep well water is hugely less expensive to supply than the river water, yet Saylor and your friends gave it away. Why?
Don, it’s disappointing that you choose to attack the messenger. And whenever you do, thinking back about all the times you have done it, it’s usually when I hit a sore or weak point that you and friends do not want to have publically discussed.
You love to point to this and that, but your problem is much of that public record was created by staff, consultants, so-called “experts” who are directly on the payroll of the water project or its proponents.
For example, my understanding is that one of the main consultants on this project routinely hires graduates of certain UCD water and environmental programs, and might even fund student research positions in those labs. I have not verified this yet with names and documents, but I keep hearing it happens, even now. It generally fits what I know about how this project has taken on a life of its own, with interest groups that stand to gain from it actively promoting it, and supporting the public officials who benefit from the campaign funds, workers, and independent expenditure committees that interfere in local elections.
I refer you to the blockers that tried to stop our referendum, and then the hit piece directed at Sue Greenwald when she ran for re-election.
I was right about the bogus fall 2011 rate hike, I am right about the basic premises used/developed by the project supporters to justify adding this huge amount of new water to the city system for growth purposes, and every time you come after me, I and I think many of the readers know I hit close to home, again.
you and some of your pro-JPA or bust associates have called me a liar and other horrible things since September 2011, when I started the water rate referendum. The problem
[i]’pro urban sprawl development team'[/i]
So the anit-surface water team is taking a “starve the city” approach?
In other words, if we keep our water supply small and ineffective it will make it more difficult to increase our population and develop any new real estate?
I don’t think that anyone supporting the surface water project supports it because they think it will cause urban sprawl development.
And I don’t know why we have to even make a concern about urban sprawl part of the debate about our water works. it is a completely separate issue. And to boot, we have Measure J!
Mike, here is something I posted in November 2011:
[i]You have maligned the citizens and public officials of Woodland.
You have maligned the public officials and staff of Davis.
You have labeled those of us who support the project as “elitists” and implied that project proponents snuck it by you and your supporters with questionable and nefarious practices.
You have maligned the independent experts who have, almost unanimously, endorsed the surface water project.
… It seems you will say or do anything to block the water project.[/i]
Nothing has changed. You continue to post falsehoods, attack the character and professionalism of those who oppose you. In a 24 hour period you took information from a thread — a careful, detailed description by Matt Williams about the UCD water issue — and wildly distorted it. Now you are impugning unnamed consultants with more innuendo, to wit:
[i]”…one of the main consultants on this project routinely hires graduates of certain UCD water and environmental programs, and might even fund student research positions in those labs. I have not verified this yet with names and documents, but I keep hearing it happens…”[/i]
You’re a lawyer. What is that sort of charge called?
It gets even better:
[i]”… your problem is much of that public record was created by staff, consultants, so-called “experts” who are directly on the payroll of the water project or its proponents.[/i]”
That is nonsense, but it fits your pattern.
I have not attacked you in “vicious and personal ways.” I have attacked your political tactics. There is a difference. Stop distorting, stop impugning the experts, stop misrepresenting things, stop distorting, and stop repeating things that have been proven false.
Davis deserves better than what you are doing on this issue. And it’s been going on for far too long.
I have saved and uploaded the Environmental Impact Report in question on my server here:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/Environmental-Impact-Report-Davis-Well-Capacity-Replacement.pdf[/url]
Note of interest: a letter was submitted regarding that report by Pam Nieberg of the No on I campaign. Note her concerns about the water quality and the over-use of the deep wells. Her letter is appended to the back of the document.
The EIR was approved by the City Council on August 1 2005. From the minutes of that meeting:
S. Souza moved, seconded by T. Puntillo, approval of Resolution No. 05-251 for the Well Capacity Replacement Project, Certifying the Program-Level Environmental Im-pact Report; adopting CEQA findings of Fact: Adoption a Statement of Overriding Considerations;; Adoption Mitigation Monitoring Plan; and Approving the Well Capac-ity Replacement Project. The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Greenwald, Pontillo, Saylor, Souza, Asmundson.
NOES: None.
[quote]supporting the public officials who benefit from the campaign funds, workers, and independent expenditure committees that interfere in local elections. [/quote]
Please name names of our current elected officials to whom you believe this applies. Otherwise, it is a matter of history and should be left there. If you have specific allegations, I believe that we should know about it and act as a community to stop unwarranted interference with local elections.
However, I would point out that you and the “No on I group” also represent a “committee” that is attempting to influence local elections. As a matter of fact, you have rather proudly mentioned several times having “forced” the city into some action. This is not well received by me since as a voter, I do not agree with you on this issue and do not appreciate your rather undemocratic view that you should be able to “force” your views on the rest of us.
Just one more point regarding the use of the word “elitist”. I have been called elitist many times on these threads. Now I seem to be being put into yet another “elitist” box. Those who favor the water project seemingly because we favor or worse yet would benefit from population growth. Hmmmmm…. it seems not so many months ago that I was being called “elitist” because of my opposition to the Cannery project. My point with regard to this derogatory use of the word is that it is virtually meaningless, is used in a completely nondiscriminatory manner and has no substance. My preference would be to see this issue, as all others argued on the basis of the facts and values of the presenters openly and honestly without disparaging the motives of the other side.
One thing adding to the cost of keeping up our city water system is the failure of relatively new water mains in some parts of town. In the Evergreen area of west Davis, water mains started failing in the the first few years of people moving into the new homes in the area. I personally saw this happen on both Rio Grande and Santa Rosa. City staff at the sites said there was a problem with the water main pipes that was making them fail unusually fast.
I don’t know if the city is pursuing some way of getting paid back for the costs of fixing these faulty pipes, but I hope they are.
Pam Nieberg’s comment letter on the draft EIR that Don has posted is fascinating given her involvement in the No on I campaign.
I have a water works related question.
About 3-4 years ago, my 25-year old home in West Davis has started moving and causing wall and floor cracks that should have subsided with the normal new construction settling. I talked to someone that does construction in Davis, and he commented that since Davis stopped pumping water at a pump station on Lake Blvd. across the street from Circle K on the corner of Lake and Covell, that the water table in the area has risen and it is causing the clay soil to expand.
This makes some rational sense to me; we are surrounded by drainage ponds… one that stays loaded with water to attract wild life (including the rats, raccoons and possums that do routine damage to my property).
I haven’t done any more engineering inspections at this point. We are remodeling and I am using wall covering and construction techniques to mitigate the crack situation. However, I wonder if there has been any consideration of the water table change impacts if we stop pumping? Especially in the shallow wells, it seems that the water table would rise and there would be some impacts. In this clay soil I could imagine some real foundation and structural challenges for buildings resting on clay soil that is now saturated from underground.
Do we have any hydrologists or civil engineers reading this blog that can chime in?
“In our system,planning/policy decisions,unchecked by a vigorous populism, always tend to be in the financial interest of those who have political power/influence.”
In Davis, that would be the “no growthers”, although that’s not really an apt description. “Those who oppose change” is a better descriptive or “the status quo proponents”.
-Michael Bisch
No one has attacked Mike H in vicious and personal ways on this blog. He is not a victim here.
Jeff wrote: “I don’t think that anyone supporting the surface water project supports it because they think it will cause urban sprawl development.
And I don’t know why we have to even make a concern about urban sprawl part of the debate about our water works. it is a completely separate issue. And to boot, we have Measure J!”
Thanks Jeff. I have tried to make these points over and over to no avail. To me the “sprawl red herring” is particularly frustrating one.
Robb, it may be a red herring, but it’s not ineffective. It resonates with a certain segment of the voters. That’s the way propagada works. It doesn’t require a reasoned, compelling argument. Propaganda merely has to trigger emotions. Raising the growth bogeyman definitely does that. There’s a long history of demogogues using goofy propaganda to great effect.
-Michael Bisch
For actual information, statistics, rates information, and regulations surrounding the proposed project there are many posters here who know far more than I do. What I would like to address is a philosophic issue I see that is very troubling to me. That is the portrayal of our neighbors as enemies who are either incompetent, greedy, disreputable or in league with those who would take advantage of Davis for their own enrichment.
I find this kind of characterization unrealistic, untruthful and frankly disgusting. When what we should be doing is building close bonds of cooperation and trust with our neighboring communities and institutions, there are those in our community who are hoping to strengthen their positions by casting aspersions on those who do not agree with them. What I would hope for is that, to the degree that those who oppose the water project are basing their arguments on facts and and their honestly stated values, they deserve respect and a fair hearing of their opinions. To the degree that they are pointing falsely accusatorial fingers at our city officials, city staff, neighbors to the north, of university officials, they should be either ignored or called out on their disreputable behavior.
“…they should be either ignored or called out on their disreputable behavior.”
medwoman, I have commented frequently on the Vanguard that there is far too much demonization, character assassination, ascribing false motives, intellectual dishonesty, etc. in our community dialogue utterly at odds with the view we have of ourselves as being an enlightened university community. The premise that the ends justify the means, which I had learned at university was ethically discredited in the aftermath of WWII, is rampant here (in some instances applauded!).
It would behoove the community to exercise the “ends justify the means” from our community dialogue. My suggestion would be to call it out. If the perpetrators persist, they will become irrelevant if they are ignored. Much like a school yard bully, they are only relevant so long as one pays them heed. What we do here is the exact opposite, we empower them by continuing to engage.
-Michael Bisch