(Editor’s Note: The Vanguard has received two shorter submissions, one from Elaine Roberts Musser and one from Steve Hayes. We have put them together in this piece to present two different views of the water project.)Many reasons to reject West Sac Option By Elaine Roberts Musser
As chair of the Davis Water Advisory Committee, I need to correct the glaring omissions that are being presented by the “No on Measure I” campaign. The original offer from West Sacramento was for 30 years only. Because Davis clearly deemed this unacceptable as too short a time frame, West Sacramento came back with a counter offer of “permanent rights,” but only under the following conditions (taken from Oct. 18, 2012 staff report):
* Local customers provided water pay the full cost for accessing plant capacity and in return receive a permanent source of water;
* Local customers pay monthly for their share of the operational cost, which includes a set-aside for the future replacement of the water treatment plant;
* Davis would need to contribute toward the cost of increasing the intake structure in the future. This cost would be in addition to the initial cost; and
* The cost for Davis to purchase permanent capacity is approximately $19.4 million for 12 million gallons of water per day.
The staff report also points out:
* West Sacramento’s counter-offer does not result in any cost savings.
* While West Sacramento’s offer treats Davis similarly to any customer and provides a permanent source of supply, it eliminates Davis’ ability to negotiate a rate and removes any ability to control rate impacts and increases.
* The Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency would be required to petition to change the authorized points of water diversion and prepare a supplemental EIR.
* It is reasonable to assume it would take at least three to four years from the agency’s receipt of instructions to proceed with the change petitions and supplemental EIR. This time frame does not include the time that would be necessary for any legal challenges.
* New issues could be raised during the preparation of the EIR supplement or by protests to the change petitions. There could be significant environmental issues associated with the new pipeline that would have to be constructed from West Sacramento across the Yolo Bypass (wildlife refuge) to Davis.
After seeing this staff report, the Water Advisory Committee voted strongly in favor (8-2) of the Woodland-Davis surface water project.
– Elaine Roberts Musser is Chair of the Davis Water Advisory Committee
A Tale of Two Water Systems
By Steve Hayes
When a rural property owner installs a well system down gradient or too close to a residential septic system, he or she can increase the potential for the well pump to draw septic leachate into water ultimately stored and used within a residence. This unfortunate situation can be expensive to remedy and can have adverse health effects on local residential consumers using the system for drinking water.
Errors similar to the one just described should not be repeated on a grand scale. Unfortunately, proponents of the Woodland-Davis surface water project appear to have made such an error by locating the surface water intake structure for the project on the Sacramento River east of Woodland. This structure is south of a major agricultural discharge at Knights Landing. There, the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District discharges irrigation return water containing rice herbicide residues and other potentially carcinogenic substances through an outfall directly into the Sacramento River.
During the summer irrigation season, the irrigation return water discharged through the Glenn-Colusa outfall is at a maximum. This maximum discharge coincides with the proposed maximum pumping of Sacramento River water down channel from the outfall by the Woodland-Davis project to meet anticipated summer urban water demand within the two cities.
As a result, there appears to be a conflict between the permitted discharge of irrigation return water from the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District into the Sacramento River at Knights landing, and the objective of the surface water project to access and treat surface water of unimpaired quality in an economical manner to meet summer urban needs.
The unfortunate placement of a surface water intake structure below a major, permitted agricultural discharge also can be expensive to remedy and can have adverse health effects on all consumers ultimately using the Woodland-Davis system as a source for drinking water. Be cautious in giving blanket approval to this flawed and expensive project!
I received my Ph.D. in aquatic ecology from UC Davis in 1978 and have worked on water quality monitoring and analysis issues for more than 30 years. I was chief of the Bay-Delta Monitoring and Analysis Section with the California Department of Water Resources for 16 years before my retirement.
I received my Ph.D. in aquatic ecology from UC Davis in 1978 and have worked on water quality monitoring and analysis issues for more than 30 years. I was chief of the Bay-Delta Monitoring and Analysis Section with the California Department of Water Resources for 16 years before my retirement.
[quote]there appears to be a conflict between the permitted discharge of irrigation return water from the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District into the Sacramento River[/quote]
While Steve Hayes’ academic and career credentials are impressive for the subject about which he is opining,
his conclusion is no where near definitive. His statement “there appears to be” is at least in this short opinion piece, not backed by any evidence. Perhaps he has that supportive data, perhaps not. What he has done here is to take a theoretical possibility and carefully craft a statement that would make a lay reader believe that this is a real concern. What is needed to know if this is truly an issue, is data showing the presence of the contaminants of concern in the water from the actual site of concern much as the content of selenium has been posted for our wells.
I would invite Steve Hayes to post data showing that there is actually contamination ( that would not be dealt with by the proposed water treatment) instead of relying on an analogy with farm wells and potential
hazards. If such data exists, I would take this in to account. If such data is not provided, I would view this as
an obstructionist scare tactic.
Oops. Sorry for the confusing placement of intended quotes above.
I most certainly do not have Steve Hayes credentials…..yikes…. as Matt Williams might say.
Equating the project design with a rural homeowner’s well tying into septic leachate generates a scary picture indeed. That the charge carries special weight coming from someone with the experience and credentials Doctor Hayes brings to the discussion cannot be questioned. We need to see more about this “drinking your own poop” analogy and its application to the proposed design of the project.
I think that finding “surface water of unimpaired quality” anywhere isn’t a reasonable objective. But, we don’t want to be unconsciously aiming our agricultural toilet directly at our drinking glass. Since the condition Dr. Hayes describes already is there to study, one would hope project designers already have data that would reveal whether the conflict appearance fear is scientifically warranted. The fact that a distinguished scholar with years of directly applicable field experience is making the charge requires an official response.
Hmmm – where is the Sacramento Regional Water Treatment Facility outfall in relation to the West Sacramento intake?
“Davis would need to contribute toward the cost of increasing the intake structure in the future. This cost would be in addition to the initial cost….”
My recollection is that we were told that the Woodland plant would need to be replaced/redone in 30-40 years as well.
As to the quality of the water that we will be drinking, the surface water will be mixed with our groundwater which we are told would seriously damage our current water pipes if exposed to only surface water with its significantly lower PH than what has been passing through this system. The “taste” improvement therefore may not be great and this coupled with the fact that Sacramento river is the repository for treated waste sewerage and agricultural and urban run-off, those who do not now drink the water coming out of their taps will likely continue to purchase their drinking water.
Steve
Could you possibly admit that your 30 year old monitoring data is a bit old to be relevant anymore? All its good for is conjecture. There is loads of more recent monitoring data, none of which supports your contention, none of which you mention exists or provide evidence is lacking in some way. In a town of Ph.D.’s, your’s isn’t worth the paper its printed on if your willing to just toss it around willy nilly the way you have. Use your academic skills to actually back up what you assert.
You fail to acknowledge that the flows of the Sacramento River upstream of the colusa drain, plus the combined flows of the Feather River and the Yuba River together dilute any flow from the Colusa Drain. In the past you have suggested that West Sacramento would be a better alternative than the JPA intake because its further downstream. You’ve failed to acknowledge that there isn’t any meaningful input of flow between the JPA intake and West Sac intake to increase dilution and that the distance between the two is so small that the travel time of river between the two locations can be measured in terms of hours.
From the March 2011 report entitled “Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP”:
[quote]The two herbicides, thiobencarb and molinate, are of particular interest to this project ecause of past heavy use within the watershed and past detection in the river. Both herbicides are regulated with primary MCLs – .07 mg/L and .02 mg/L for thiobencarb and molinate respectively. Thiobencarb also has a secondary MCL, set at .001 mg/L. Sampling for these two herbicides was conducted eight times over the course of the monitoring program. While both have been widely used within the watershed in the past, molinate is now banned and thiobencarb use requirements have become more stringent and methods of application have changed in ways that may reduce incidental contamination outside the rice fields themselves. At present time (March 2011) neither herbicide was detected in the DWWSP monitoring program.
Outside of the DWWSP water quality monitoring program, samples were collected as part of the CA Rice Commission (CRC) Rice Pesticide Program at one location in the Sacramento River (SR1), two drains into the Sacramento River (CBD1 and CBD5), and two sloughs of the Sacramento River (BS1 and SSB), and analyzed for thiobencarb. These results are shown in Table 6.8. Thiobencarb was detected at levels above the analytical detection limit of .0005 mg/L once in the Sacramento River (SR1). In this sample, the thiobencarb concentration was .08 mg/L, which exceeded the primary MCL. Thiobencarb was detected in several samples from the drains and sloughs.
The City of Sacramento and the City of West Sacramento also collected water samples from the Sacramento River at their intakes and analyzed the samples for molinate and bolero, a herbicide with thiobencarb as the active ingredient (Table 6.9). Both of these intake locations are downstream of the proposed DWWSP intake, and all samples had molinate and bolero concentrations below the analytical detection limit (.0001 mg/L) and below their respective MCLs. Where these two pesticides are considered, conditions conditions seem to be improving, particularly with the ban of molinate. Where thiobencarb is concerned, there is also reason for optimism, but, because of the compound’s adverse impact on the flavor of water, even when present at very low levels, prudence would suggest that the DWWSP treatment facility should be designed to address the need for its removal.[/quote]
Steve Hayes has been singing this song for months but has presented no evidence to back up his assertions and uses a completely incorrect analogy to describe the situation in the Sacramento River.
This is because river contamination does not degrade over distance like water traveling through soil as Mr. Hayes indicates. Any such river contamination would functionally travel straight down the river like water through a straw because the contamination really has no other place to go with the exception of some possible settling of suspended solids over the distance the river water traveled. Countering this effect is the fact that additional sediment contamination of the river water can occur due to agricultural and urban surface runoff that occurs between the proposed RD 2035 distance and the Bryce Bend intake.
Substantial monitoring of various constituents in the Sacramento River near these two sites has occurred for a number of years and the information is contained in a CWA report entitled “Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the Woodland Davis Water Supply Project“ which is dated March, 2011”. This document is available from the CWA’s website.
This report looked at water quality analysis taken for several years at the proposed RD 2035 intake structure and compared it to analyses taken over a longer period at Bryce Bend and other locations upstream and downstream of the two locations. Although the sample results were averaged and reported over different time period and in some cases using different analytical methods, the report concluded that overall water quality was quite similar at the two locations in terms of suspended solids, total dissolved solids, individual constituents, and total organic carbon (TOC). Steve Hayes is aware of this report but has chosen not to share the information in hs discussion because it would prove the fallacy of his assertions.
Of further interest in the report, though, is the author’s advice as to post-intake water treatment based on the water quality at those sites particularly with respect to removal and treatment for TOC without formation of regulated chlorinated disinfection byproducts (known as DBPs) such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs). Many THMs/HAAs are proven potent human carcinogens (e.g. chloroform) and of serious human health concerns hence they are strictly regulated in drinking water. Based on the certainty of THM and HAA formation when treating TOC with chlorine, the authors made the following conclusions in their report
[i]“Although enhanced coagulation and other treatment measures to reduce TOC are likely sufficient to meet regulated DBP levels, the margin they provide is not great. As DBPs are one of the more important health risks associated with modern water treatment, even at regulated levels, the WDCWA may chose to consider lower targets for these contaminants. Should this choice be made, other disinfection options, such as ozone for primary disinfection…”[/i] should be considered.
The author also stated in the report, [i]“In summary, while the …test results indicated low THM and HAA formation following enhanced coagulation, experience of downstream water treatment utilities indicate there is enough variability in water quality for the TTHM concentrations to periodically approach the regulatory MCL. So alternative disinfectants, such as ozone, should be also considered for the new DWWSP treatment facility.”[/i]
The fact that ozone is specified as the primary oxidant at the Woodland-Davis plant and that it is not used and cannot be added at the West Sac Bryce Bend plant is a strong impetus in favor of pursuing the greater water quality that would be provided by the Woodland-Davis plant.
Davis Enophile wrote: “You’ve failed to acknowledge that there isn’t any meaningful input of flow between the JPA intake and West Sac intake to increase dilution”
Yes there is; the American River, which runs clear for some distance next to the muddy Sacramento River after they some together at Discovery Park. Here is a link to a photo of this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=les;&gs_rn=2&gs_ri=hp&gs_mss=american+river+and&cp=53&gs_id=5x&xhr=t&q=american+river+and+sacramento+river+at+discovery+park&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42080656,d.cGE&biw=1282&bih=787&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=kfgTUfuaKqTvigKKkIGwBw#imgrc=bl1Fc0vY5ymG3M:;WKD_dDqVkUkNCM;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/27874339_bbee6110d3.jpg;http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tspauld/27874339/;500;375
Corrected link for Sacramento River & American River water photo:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=les;&gs_rn=2&gs_ri=hp&gs_mss=american+river+and&cp=53&gs_id=5x&xhr=t&q=american+river+and+sacramento+river+at+discovery+park&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42080656,d.cGE&biw=1282&bih=787&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=kfgTUfuaKqTvigKKkIGwBw#imgrc=bl1Fc0vY5ymG3M:;WKD_dDqVkUkNCM;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/27874339_bbee6110d3.jpg;http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tspauld/27874339/;500;375
Third try, hope this one works:
Davis Enophile wrote: “You’ve failed to acknowledge that there isn’t any meaningful input of flow between the JPA intake and West Sac intake to increase dilution”
Yes there is; the American River, which runs clear for some distance next to the muddy Sacramento River after they come together at Discovery Park. Here is a link to a photo of this:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tspauld/27874339/
You can also see the different colored waters of the Sacramento and American Rivers as they come together at Discovery Park in the current Google Maps overview of the area.
Barbara
You are unfortunately mistaken. West Sacs intake is at Bryte Bend, which is upstream of the American River. You can prove this for yourself by reading their 2011 water quality report at:
[url]http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/city/depts/pw/public_works_operations/environmental_prog/waterquality.asp[/url]
Click on the 2011 consumer confidence report and read the part about water supply sources.
2cowherd
Don’t worry, Sac Regionals wastewater outfall is downstream of the JPA intake. Its downstream of West Sacs intak at Bryte Bend. And its downstream of City of Sacs intake on the Sacramento River (they also have an intake on the American River).
I just Google mapped the Bryte Bend Water Treatment Plant, and it is upstream from Discovery Park. Does anyone know if that is where West Sacramento’s water intake is, too?
Thanks Davis Enophile –
You’ve answered a question I have been wondering about
davisite2: “”Davis would need to contribute toward the cost of increasing the intake structure in the future. This cost would be in addition to the initial cost….”
My recollection is that we were told that the Woodland plant would need to be replaced/redone in 30-40 years as well.
As to the quality of the water that we will be drinking, the surface water will be mixed with our groundwater which we are told would seriously damage our current water pipes if exposed to only surface water with its significantly lower PH than what has been passing through this system. The “taste” improvement therefore may not be great and this coupled with the fact that Sacramento river is the repository for treated waste sewerage and agricultural and urban run-off, those who do not now drink the water coming out of their taps will likely continue to purchase their drinking water.”
The “intake” refers to the intake facility on the Sacramento River that contains pumps that suck the water into the distribution pipe that brings the river water to the treatment plant. The “cost of increasing the intake structure in the future” would be an additional cost.
Welcom back, ERM.
[quote]I just Google mapped the Bryte Bend Water Treatment Plant, and it is upstream from Discovery Park. Does anyone know if that is where West Sacramento’s water intake is, too? [/quote]
Yes, the intake is directly opposite the plant, just north of where I-80 crosses River Road.
Would be nice if Steve Hayes clarified the approximate distance downstream from the agricultural discharge point that the proposed Woodland project water intake point is located.
Although turbulent eddies will eventually (far enough down the river) mix any point source of pollution across the cross-sectional width of the river; this downstream distance can be quite long. You can easily imagine that if the proposed uptake point is within a few hundred feet (or maybe longer) of the agricultural discharge point; the agricultural discharge plume may not yet be well mixed across the width of the river.
Whether or not this may be an issue is relatively easy to resolve by performing plume dispersion modeling (and perhaps tracer experiments) on the pertinent section of the river; or just sampling the river water at the appropriate seasons and times at the proposed inlet point–has any of this been done?
jimt
I don’t believe it suits Steve’s purpose to tell you that the drain is more than 10 miles upstream. It is not hundreds of feet. The drain is at Knights Landing, east of I-5 at about where highway 205 intersects. About halfway between the JPA intake and Knights Landing is the confluence of the Sacramento River and Feather River.