By Brett Lee
When I campaigned for Davis City Council, my platform on the water issue was for a more affordable project that was appropriately sized and, most importantly, voter-approved. The project that is now being proposed in Measure I is about $30 million less expensive, and has shrunk in size from about 18 million gallons a day to 12 million gallons a day.
And on March 5, we will all get to vote on it — yes or no. Prior to March 5, all voters will receive a mailer from the city that clearly spells out the rate increases that will be required if the project is approved.
How should you vote on Measure I? I suppose that depends on you. I do, however, hope that your decision will be based on the facts, not some of the half-truths that have been swirling around the discussion of this project.
Here are some facts that are not in dispute:
Our drinking water meets all current standards. But it is not correct to add “and always will.” The more complete picture is that our water does meet all current standards, but the standards are likely to change. We can expect changes in allowable levels of the constituents currently regulated, and it is likely that additional constituents will be added to the regulated list. We do not know what the new standards will be, but it can be reasonably anticipated that the regulations will be more strict and we may have difficulty in meeting them.
On the flip side, it is also not correct to say that “we will be fined if we don’t obtain surface water.” We may be fined, but it depends on what the new limits are and what new constituents are added to the regulated list.
The intermediate aquifer that we have relied on for our water has had declining water quality over the years. We are moving away from this as a water source because of the difficulty in meeting existing drinking water standards with this source. We have shifted to using the deep aquifer, which generally has higher water quality than the intermediate aquifer.
However, the deep aquifer that we are using today is also showing signs of a decline in water quality.
The water experts that spoke before the Water Advisory Committee said they are not able to tell if the quantity of water in the deep aquifer can sustain our current level of water usage. They are not able to accurately determine the aquifer recharge rate.
Based upon the above facts and the following personal views, I have come to my position on the water project proposal:
I believe that the long-term trend of declining water quality in our aquifers will continue.
I also believe that in the long run, it is not prudent to assume that the aquifers we are using will be able to keep up with the demand we are placing on them as our sole source of water.
I do not believe it is wise to follow a path of “using up” the deep aquifer and then trying to switch to river water at some future date. What has not been widely publicized is that in drought conditions, access to river water can be greatly restricted. If river water use is restricted, we would need to supplement our system with well water far in excess of the modest well water usage currently planned for each summer. In anticipation of a possible drought scenario, it would be wisest, therefore, if we conserved our deep aquifer supply rather than deplete it.
And although this may sound self-serving, I wonder how the property value of my home and my neighbors’ homes would change if we no longer had a clean, dependable supply of water.
It is for these reasons that I have decided to support Measure I. Reasonable people may disagree and reach different conclusions.
As a final check on my thinking and decision-making, I thought about the two alternatives: build the plant or not build the plant.
If we build the plant, what is the worst-case scenario? The worst case would be that we really didn’t need it (let’s call this scenario 1). What is the result? My very rough ballpark estimate of my share of the new water project cost is around $8,000 ($130 million project divided by 16,000 ratepayers = $8,000; this is my share of the new project cost, not an ongoing yearly cost). So worst case with scenario 1, is that I ended up spending an extra $8,000 (plus interest) spread over 30 years on insurance against running out of water.
If we don’t build the plant, what is the worst-case scenario? The worst case would be that at some point in the future, due to deteriorating water quality or quantity (or both), we need to find an additional supply of water. What is the result? If an accessible, inexpensive and plentiful supply exists at that time, then we will be OK. If such a supply is not available, our community will suffer (let’s call this scenario 2). Our home values will take a hit. So worst case, with scenario 2, I am looking at a sizable financial loss.
And how does one assess the likelihood of either of these scenarios?
It depends on your time frame. If you plan on living in Davis for a long time, and have or plan to establish deep roots in our community, scenario 2 becomes potentially more likely. If you are just passing through, neither scenario is likely to affect you much.
I have a long-term time frame when I look at this question. Sixty-five years ago, my grandparents moved to Davis. Today when I think about the future, I would like my 4-year-old son to be able to enjoy the type of Davis that I have benefited from. I must therefore assess the risk of scenario 2 coming true as something that cannot be ignored. Again, this leads me to support the proposed water project.
As a side note, most people know I am not a supporter of peripheral development. I believe that the most important way we can protect our community from sprawl development is through the Measure J/R process (the requirement that any annexation of county agricultural land for residential development must be approved by a citywide vote). The idea that we would create a water shortage for our community in order to restrict potential future development seems to me to be off the mark.
I think it is necessary to point out that the range of decisions is not limited to these two options:
1) Build the new water plant as prescribed by WAC
2) Do nothing
The full range of considerations also include these options:
3) Build the new water plant as prescribed by WAC, but pay for it in a different way
4) Build a different water plant
5) Pay for our current water a different way
The concerns cited include health, sustainability, and cost. These concerns can be addressed by other options to various degrees. Rationally, a vote of YES on Measure I is the conclusion that option (1) is the best choice compared to all other known options. An argument for YES on Measure I cannot be made by only comparing to option (2).
For instance:
[b]Claim:[/b] YES on I is good because it divides the cost over all ratepayers.
In this statement, there is no mention on why the cost can’t be paid by both ratepayers and taxpayers. The reason to limit the contribution from ratepayer needs to be explained.
[b]Claim:[/b] YES on I is good because I can afford to pay $8000 as insurance for clean and sustainable water.
In this statement, there is no mention on whether the same effect could be done with a cost even less than $8000, or $22 per month over 30 years. For this reason to be valid, one has to decide whether $22 plus the potential change in long-term water bills minus the monthly water filtering costs is worth thinking over.
If you currently don’t use any filtering, and you have no reason to believe that your water bill would double, and your current monthly bill is $18, then you are asking, “The new plant will cost me $40 per month. Is it worth my money or time to wait for a better solution? What else could I have done with that $40 per month?”
What percentage of Davis houses use expensive, polluting water softeners and bottled water?
I would have to search for the information, so this is just my recollection that half of Davis homes and businesses use water softeners. That would be pretty high.
Here was something I found a while ago about Phoenix AZ:
“”One-quarter of all homes surveyed have a Water Softener, with penetration approaching four-in-ten in the Growth area, almost two and one half times greater than in the Established area. Reverse Osmosis system ownership follows this same pattern.
Water Softener (and Reverse Osmosis system) ownership significantly increases with income to nearly half of all households having Water Softeners in the highest income group.”
Dixon estimated 20% of homes had them. So it is correlated with income, as well as water quality.
Don: interesting info; thanks for sharing.
From a survey conducted in late December, 2012, by the Yes in Measure I campaign:
To supply drinking water in your household, do you..?
purchase bottled water. …….. 34%
have a water softener. ……… 33%
have a water filter. ……….. 45%
OTHER. ………………….. 4%
NONE. …………………… 11%
Good statement from Mr. Lee.
Its even more refreshing than a draught of Davis tap water to see a politician express both pro and con sides of an issue he supports; with the con side being more than strawman type arguments.
I find myself waffling on this water issue–guess I like to think there is a way to ensure a good water supply more cheaply; which I concede may not be plausible.
One of the main concerns with water rates rising so much is that demand will likely decline; leading to higher costs per unit of water and thus further decrease in demand. Has a cost: demand structure been built in (apologies if this was addressed in earlier posts)? I’m wondering if the wonderful tree canopy and/or nice gardens that are present thruout most of the town, including most of the less affluent areas; will start to thin out in the less affluent areas; as these residents strive to save money on their water bills by having a more desert-like yard and garden? Extra water for such things will be more of a luxury for the less affluent; sad that these may entail some decrease in quality of life for those already less affluent; and I think really diminish the nice ambience in this town.
Well said Jim. Brett has struck me the same way ever since I met him the first time in February 2012. Being willing to see both sides of an issue doesn’t endear him to the people who are strong advocates like Mike Harrington, but as they say you can’t please all the people all the time.
The answer to your demand structure question is, “Absolutely!” Bartle Wells and I performed some sensitivity testing of various elasticity ratios on both Uniform Block rates and Tiered rates to come up with an annual conservation expectation. Then we applied the resultant reduced consumption numbers to both the revenue raised by the Variable Use charges and to the CBFR Supply Charge.
The result is that throughout the five-year term of the rate structure the revenues are insulated from “conservation erosion” and therefore there will be no “surprise” rate hikes needed due to the failure of the revenues to cover costs. CBFR was designed to cover 100% of the system’s total fixed costs, not a penny more, not a penny less. That provides fiscal stability and fiscal sustainability for both the water system’s customers and the water district itself.
Regarding the trees, the amount of irrigation that a mature tree needs is significantly less than a lawn needs, and almost always significantly less than yard plantings (in non-lawn landscapes) need. A great example of how well trees do in a low water situation is there for everyone to see at the corner of Lehigh Drive and Lassey Place in Davis Manor. The owner of the property is the Director of the UCD Botanical Conservatory, and his plantings are all succulents and desert plants that he has collected from his trips to Baja California and other dry climates. They thrive on low water, and the massive oak trees that shade his property and Lehigh Drive are thriving as well.
Matt–that’s good news about the demand side; and about the trees.
I suspect it is mainly the young trees, or trees with shallow root systems, that might suffer from low water in summer? But I imagine citrus and other fruit trees continue to need plentiful summer water thru maturity?
Would be nice to see an article by some tree experts (Don Shor; others) on what effect low water will have on mature trees and on trees currently on public property. Might be a good educational effort to the Davis community to encourage private-property plantings of those types of trees that can do OK with little summer water; thinking of future water and $ savings for property owners.