We are less than a month away from the ballots being sent out and less than two months from the end of the Measure I campaign. Ballots are due March 5, but it seems like we have barely begun.
While the Vanguard presents the arguments made without commentary or analysis, at a later point, we may do some fact-checking.
Today the opposition to the water project, represented by Holly Bishop, Pam Nieberg and Nancy Price, has an op-ed in the local newspaper entitled, “Water affordability is a city responsibility.”
The Measure I opponents argue, “The city attorney’s ‘impartial analysis’ of the project states that Davis’ share of the cost would be roughly $120 million, yet the total cost for Davis could rise to $300 million.”
They proceed to make their case as to why they believe the voters should oppose Measure I.
“Total project costs are unknown and unaffordable,” they argue. “The City Council is asking residents for a blank check because accurate total costs are unknown. No final contract has been bid, negotiated or approved by the Davis and Woodland city councils to design, build and operate this water project. Thus, the real amount needed for bond financing, including added debt service, is a guess.”
They note, “When concerned residents challenged the City Council rates proposed in September 2011, we demanded that ratepayers be able to vote on any water rate increases, yet Measure I includes no rates and renters are excluded from the Proposition 218 process that takes place after the Measure I vote.”
“Why are we voting on a project when details of true cost and rates are not on the ballot?” they ask.
Proponents of the project are quick to argue that the “rates will rise regardless of this project.”
The opposition counters: “Yet no comparison between rates without and with the project is provided. This deliberately conceals the magnitude of rate increases with the project.”
“Total project costs must include debt service, and also needed upgrades to our current system and purchase of Conaway Ranch water rights. In total, the cost to ratepayers of $30 million per year over many years is likely,” they add.
Secondly, they argue that there will not be cost savings with conservation. “The proposed project generates huge fixed infrastructure costs for water delivery,” they argue. “But water conservation that reduces city revenue creates the need for an equal increase in the cost of water to pay for the fixed infrastructure and water delivery costs. So, while conserving water is good, conservation will not significantly reduce costs and impacts heavy users such as schools, public parks and pools, and businesses.”
They also note that there has been no analysis of the fiscal impact on the local and regional economy. Under this proposal, by 2018, they argue that single-family water bills would more than triple and they argue this would give “Davis and Woodland some of the most expensive water statewide.”
They add, “Including the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, Davis utility bills could reach over $3,000 per year, burdening households, especially those on fixed incomes.”
“Furthermore, high-water-use businesses will see costs rise and could pass these to the consumer,” the opposition writes. “Extra household expenses will adversely impact local and regional economies, making it more difficult to pass measures to support our schools and public parks, play fields and pools. This should concern the Davis Chamber of Commerce and Davis Board of Education, yet representatives of these groups have endorsed this project.”
Continuing with the mantra of the opposition, they argue that this is “a rushed project” and that “no emergency exists either for additional water supply or to meet wastewater discharge requirements.”
They contend, “With the recent addition of new deep aquifer wells to our system, our water quantity has improved considerably and the city can continue to supply affordable water to residents. Davis groundwater levels fluctuate, but are recovering to normal levels, so there is no danger of over-drafting the groundwater.”
They continue, claiming, “State Department of Water Resources studies show that area groundwater has not deteriorated in quantity over the past 50 years.”
In the summer months, there would be only up to 4 mgd of river water available, even less in drought years. They argue that Davis typically uses around 10 mgd and has a ground water capacity of 50 mgd.
“Significantly, modest, cost-effective improvements in groundwater management should keep Davis supplied with affordable water for years,” they argue. “Water from deep wells has improved quality and softness. Currently, Davis meets all water quality standards and will in future years. There is no issue with selenium or salinity in the wastewater discharge, one reason given for urgent need of this project. River water is not necessary to meet our discharge requirements, nor will it significantly lower the costs of wastewater treatment.”
They also argue that the project is “unfair.” They note, “Davis ratepayers will pay 30 percent more per gallon of water than Woodland pays. The Davis Water Advisory Committee did not endorse a project with this inequitable cost-sharing agreement. Why should Davis subsidize Woodland’s outsized development plans?”
“The Water Advisory Committee spent most of its time discussing rates, but even a brief review of the project led to a one-third reduction in size and scope. What other cost savings can be made?” they conclude. “A thorough project analysis must occur and rates must be made public before any vote. Davis residents need to vote no on Measure I to ensure affordable water for the future.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Here is a link to an op-ed written by Professor Ed Schroeder that was in The Davis Enterprise Aug. 29, 2011:
Better water is needed, now http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/better-water-is-needed-now/
And here is a link to the summary of Q&A with Ken Landau, Deputy Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Dianna Messina, Supervising Engineer with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board:
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/RWQCB_WDCWA_QandA.pdf[/url]
[i]”Significantly, modest, cost-effective improvements in groundwater management [b]should keep Davis supplied with affordable water for years[/b],” they argue. “Water from deep wells has improved quality and softness. Currently, Davis meets all water quality standards [b]and will in future years. There is no issue with selenium or salinity in the wastewater discharge[/b], one reason given for urgent need of this project. [b]River water is not necessary to meet our discharge requirements[/b]…[/i]
Bolded statements are factually incorrect or rely on very imprudent use of the deep aquifer.
What is the difference between Davis and the Third World?
We carry our drinking water in our SUV’s burning fossil fuel to transfer our drinking water from the Co-Op well.
Who’s this we?
David; I think a fact checking series would be very helpful here….or maybe a debate ON THE FACTS sponsored by the DV?
We are working on one for late January. More details soon.
The whole thing will depend on if we really can find out what the actual facts are, if that is even possible. It is becoming a “yes it is, no it isn’t” kind of debate. The one thing I know is that I do not trust politicians to provide good information. And the “fact” that it seems there will not be enough river water available when we need it most, and we have no plans to store it when it is available, is a major disconnect, not to mention the astronomical real cost. Maybe our wells are a better investment, especially if we could learn to conserve and be happy with plants that belong here.
A question and a point:
Question: I remain somewhat confused about the issue of conservation. My understanding is that cost estimates (that would influence the fixed rate portion of bills) assume a certain percent reduction in use over the coming 5 year (or longer) period. 20% sticks in my mind. If this is true then what exactly are opponents trying to say about the issue of conservation? Can someone help me out with this?
Point: I continue to be dismayed at the way opponents talk about Woodland. I simply do not see in what sense we are subsidizing Woodland’s water. Further, in the years ahead I expect that we are going to need to be in solidarity with all our nearby neighbors as other parts of CA try to access the water that flows through the Northern Sacramento Valley. I think it is in our best interests to see Woodland as a partner and not an adversary. I am getting tired of this. It is short sighted. We need to build a relationship of trust not constantly demonize our neighbors to the north.
Woodland is just looking out for their own best interest in a fair way, if we want to join them in this project that’s our prerogative. Woodland should not be demonized for not paying to build our extra distance of pipe if the project comes to Davis.
As for the relevance of conservation, there will always be the fixed cost, whether we invest more in our wells or in the river water project; but if we conserved, the need for river water and the issue of potentially overdrafting the aquifer would be lessened.
Donna: thank you for your comments and keeping an open mind.
Robb: the Woodland and Davis political cultures don’t mix so well. They can bankrupt their ratepayers and destroy their Main Street and downtown from bad planning, but we don’t have to join them.
Why on earth is our CC allowing itself to be rushed into this March ballot that lacks project specifics and the rates? The Vangaurd correctly pointed out that a June ballot would have allowed a more descriptive measure with legally binding rates.
Mr.Toad wrote:
> We carry our drinking water in our SUV’s
Then Growth issue wrote:
> Who’s this we?
After reading his posts I’m surprised to find out that Mr. Toad is a SUV driver…
“The whole thing will depend on if we really can find out what the actual facts are, if that is even possible. It is becoming a “yes it is, no it isn’t” kind of debate.”
I feel like Rip Van Winkle. Last time I checked in, the WAC was created to separate fact from fiction and the WAC determined conjunctive use was necessary. Or was it gingivitis? Well, it was something like that.
-Michael Bisch
“Significantly, modest, cost-effective improvements in groundwater management should keep Davis supplied with affordable water for years,” they argue. “Water from deep wells has improved quality and softness. Currently, Davis meets all water quality standards and will in future years. There is no issue with selenium or salinity in the wastewater discharge, one reason given for urgent need of this project. River water is not necessary to meet our discharge requirements…”
Wow! How can someone knowingly put their name to statements like that? Oh, that’s right, it’s done all the time. Human generated carbon emission has no impact on global climate. Nuclear weapons in Iraq. Romney is winning in a landslide. Ideology, ideology, ideology.
-Michael Bisch
Okay, i have an old truck i use on those rare occasions where i need to haul something.
Still i think you are the point. i recently saw an old friend, someone I met when he was trying to get me to vote against Covell Center in the Measure X campaign, buying water at the Co-op. Now this person is a big NIMBY and opposes the water project but won’t drink the water and drives his car to get it at the Co-Op. In my mind if you won’t drink the water you should be trying to improve it. If you drive to get water to drink you should be trying to improve the quality of the water in your tap.
Correction: Still i think you are missing the point…
Michael Bisch, that made me LOL (as it is now written). As for these statements, what bothers me is the people making them are not usually “full of it”. I am trying to pay attention and to understand the river water availability issues, because again, for me there seems a disconnect there. I guess that is where conjunctive use comes in. Do we need deep ground water AND river water? If so that means we have to bear the cost to have both systems running concurrently, WOW.
I would hope if one drives to get drinking water it is in the same trip as for other items. As for drinking “purified” river water from below the Colusa drain, are you kidding? It might taste better than ground water but who knows what will be in it.
[i]Do we need deep ground water AND river water?
[/i]
Yes, but we should consider the river water our primary source. With our new deep wells we have increased our pumping from the deep aquifer many-fold. Our deep wells can conflict with UCD wells, and they have prior rights to that water. We can’t dig any more deep wells due to our agreement with UCD. So we will be relying on a small number of deep wells, pumping them at an unusually high rate, and heavily using an aquifer that water experts do not consider a sustainable long-term source for the city.
We will need to retire many of the intermediate-aquifer wells soon due to age. Plus, the water from those wells has too much selenium. So we will be reducing our available capacity of groundwater without any ability to add more deep wells. You would have to assume zero population growth and a high level of conservation to continue using just the well water.
Additionally, the deep aquifer water contains equally high levels of some of the constituents that are subject to water quality regulations. For example, the deeper water has more boron than the shallower water.
“As for drinking “purified” river water from below the Colusa drain, are you kidding? It might taste better than ground water but who knows what will be in it.”
Actually the Yolo County DA just got a big settlement from Walgreens for improperly dumping drugs that pollute our ground water with all sorts of things. As for Sacramento River water quality they sure aren’t bothered about it in L.A.