by Eileen M. Samitz
Like so many Davis citizens, I was torn between the pro and con arguments between the “Yes” and “No” campaigns. What really helped me decide how to vote was seeing the televised debate between the two sides sponsored by the Vanguard of Davis and continuing to read the articles, letters, and Op-Ed pieces before and after that debate.
Opponents of Measure I claim: 1) “there is nothing wrong with our water quality”, and 2) “there is no urgency to address our water issues”, however I cannot agree with either of these presumptions. As the deadline draws near for mail-in votes to be received by March 5th, here are some of the many reasons to vote “Yes” on Measure I.
1) Our intermediate aquifer is loaded with hard minerals which cause scaling to build up on plumbing and fixtures, and ruins our water appliances. Additionally, the nitrates from agriculture are getting into our ground water which has rendered some well water unsafe for drinking by young children and those wells have had to be shut down. Nitrates are increasing in all of our remaining intermediate aquifer wells. There is also excessive selenium and boron in our wastewater which is harmful to our wildlife and plants in our wetlands. We are now under order from the Regional Water Board to reduce these unsafe discharges.
2) It is common sense that the deep aquifer is a finite resource and drawing down our wells into the deep aquifer is not sustainable long-term. It has been made clear by experts that if we were to drill down more into this limited resource, we risk depletion and/or contamination from the upper aquifers.
3) The solution to our water problem is to use surface water from the Sacramento River. This solution was unanimously recommended by the citizen-based process of the Davis citizens Water Advisory Committee. This committee included water experts and the resulting recommendations are good solutions to our looming water problem. The citizens committee rejected the West Sacramento option for many reasons and recommended partnering with Woodland to co-own and co-build a new, surface water plant using the most current technology.
4) Why Woodland and why not West Sacramento for a surface water project?
The Davis citizens Water Advisory Committee understood that:
a) With the West Sac option, Davis would only be a customer (not a co-owner) purchasing some of their excess water. With the Woodland option, Davis would be a co-owner of a new technology plant for higher quality water, sustainable into the future.
b) West Sac has an old technology using chlorine-based processing of the water leaving chlorinated hydrocarbons in the water. Many of these chlorinated by products, including chloroform, are proven carcinogens. In contrast, with the Woodland option we would use a new cleaner, safer technology using activated oxygen (i.e. ozone) to take impurities out of the water, rather than chlorine.
c) Furthermore, environmentalists agree that the West Sac option can not work because many miles of habitat would be significantly damaged in trying to install many miles of pipeline through the sensitive Yolo Bypass and Wildlife Preserve to Davis.
d) Finally, West Sacramento confirmed verbally, and in writing that a surface water project was not going to work between Davis and West Sacramento.
5) Cost has been an issue raised by opponents of Measure I, however they do not explain that our rates must double even if Measure I is voted down in order to maintain our current system. Plus the city will then need to pay the high cost fines because our water cannot meet State water discharge standards. So why would we not instead invest those same costs into building a new, clean technology surface water system where we share costs with Woodland to reduce our costs, particularly when interest rates are currently so low ? Furthermore, with Measure I conservation efforts made by any residence would result with lower water bill costs for that residence, contrary to claims by Measure I opponents.
6) The consequences are disturbing and far reaching if we forgo this opportunity for cleaner, safer water. As a result of having no plan and no solution to our water problem we would continue to dump hard and highly salted water with selenium, boron and other damaging minerals into the wetlands causing harm to our wildlife and habitat. Many environmental groups like Yolo Audubon Society, Tuleyome, and the UCD Society for Conservation Biology all support Measure I because they agree that we need to stop the damage being imposed upon our wildlife and the wetlands.
7) The longer we delay a solution, the more the costs accumulate because of our poor quality of water. Hard water coats our plumbing, like cholesterol plaque building up on blood vessels, narrowing the inside of our water pipes and continuing to destroy our water appliances. Everything from coffee makers, washing machines, and dishwashers to toilets, sinks and water fixtures are affected. Add to this the many caustic cleaning chemicals introduced into our waste water that are used to try to remove these hardened minerals regularly. The” No on Measure I” side has not addressed the significant costs of: a) bottled water for drinking as well as for boron sensitive plants, b) replacement of water appliances, landscaping plants, drip systems, c) expensive hard water cleaning chemicals, and d) salt for water softeners. All of these expenses continue into the future without Measure I. If we continue to ignore our water problem now, we continue paying the cumulative costs for dealing with our poor water quality and we delay the needed solutions. As result we will face a much larger and more expensive problem later.
8) Good planning means not taking unnecessary risks and that we need to corrective action now, particularly when the warning signs of deteriorating wells and water quality are so clear. Waiting and gambling on our water quality and quantity only invites a water shortage and the continued deterioration of our water quality. To correct the problem later can only come at a much higher price for Davis when a crisis does occur. The reality is that we cannot afford to wait, nor should we continue to live with worsening water quality or risk facing a water shortage.
Measure I evolved through a citizen-based process and is supported by the Davis citizens Water Advisory Committee, the City Council, many current and former City of Davis Commissioners, numerous elected officials, senior citizens, environmentalists, in addition to many other Davis residents. All of these Measure I supporters recognize that now is the time to move forward with the solutions that Measure I will bring us to our looming water problem.
Please vote Yes on Measure I so that we will have cleaner, safer, and far better tasting water that is also better for our health, our plants, our wildlife, our environment, and our future.
Eileen M. Samitz is a former Planning Commissioner in the City of Davis
Thank you Eileen for your clear, thoughtful and well written post.
[quote]c) Furthermore, environmentalists agree that the West Sac option can not work because many miles of habitat would be significantly damaged in trying to install many miles of pipeline through the sensitive Yolo Bypass and Wildlife Preserve to Davis.[/quote]
I’ve seen this argument put forth many times, but I have yet to see any substance behind it. The logical route for a West Sac pipeline is somewhere on the north side of the railroad. The Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area extends less than a half-mile north of the railroad, and only in one spot about a mile and a half wide. Routing a pipeline around this sliver of the wildlife area would be trivial, if it were even necessary.
.
Eileen
Thank you for the yes vote. Thank you for this very well written post.
Thank you, Eileen, for your common sense.
In the first place, environmentalist do not agree that the West Sac option cannot work because of the harm to habitat. I work with many environmentalists, and none of the ones I have spoken to either use or support this argument. The railline is already there. The pipe could be routed through the already impacted section.
Sierra Club was asked to support this project, but did not. After reviewing it, the SC at the Mother Lode level voted 14 with one abstention to remain neutral.
There is nothing wrong with our water. The intermediate aquifer is hard water, but it is not in any way harmful. With addition of the water from the deep aquifer, which produces very high quality water with no salts or selenium, our water has improved considerably in terms of hardness. There is no need for river water to address the hardness issue. Our deep aquifer water is every bit as good, and it is not grossly polluted as is river water with run-off from ag and urban uses, pharmaceuticals we flush down the drain, and other toxics.
It is also inaccurate to say our deep aquifer is not sustainable. We do know that it recharges from the watersheds to the west off the coast range and somewhat also from the east. It is also a very large aquifer. Davis could continue using water from our deep aquifer for many years, justs as the University has been doing for 50 years and will continue to do.
There is nothing sustainable about sucking more water out of the river, thereby diverting more water away from the already declining delta. With climate change and ever increasing demands on river water, who is to say how long that water will be there?
We need to vote Measure I down, so that we can develop a more affordable, appropriate, and environmentally sustainable project for Davis.
Most of my regrets in life are from the things I didn’t do. I fully expect the future to be filled with water-related regrets if Measure I fails and we do not build this surface water system.
The rate design needs a bit of work, but problems with the rate design are not reason enough to vote no.
Respected local environmentalist support Measure I as the environmentally sustainable way to go. Bob Schneider and Andrew Fulks from Tuleyome, Yolo Clean Air, Chad Roberts, Conservation Chair, The Audubon Society, UCD Society got Conservation Biology, plus numerous commissioners from the Natural Resource Commission.
The list of people endorsing Yes on Measure I is impressive. Even people that I would consider normally in the “progressive” camp – Tansey Thomas, Ken Wagstaff, Brett Lee, Eileen Samitz, among others – are supporting the project. (I can just imagine the anger directed their way from Mike and his crowd.)
Thank you, Eileen, for this well-written essay. And I think your local planning and growth credentials are well-known.
Wolf:
[quote]There is nothing wrong with our water. The intermediate aquifer is hard water, but it is not in any way harmful. With addition of the water from the deep aquifer, which produces very high quality water with no salts or selenium, our water has improved considerably in terms of hardness. [/quote]
Just for the record, the deeper water has as much or more boron, and arsenic. Both are likely to be regulated effluent constituents in the future.
[quote]There is no need for river water to address the hardness issue. Our deep aquifer water is every bit as good
[/quote]
No, it’s not. Compare the water quality reports from the city of Davis, UCD, and the city of Sacramento for more information. They’re all available on line.
[quote] and it is not grossly polluted as is river water with run-off from ag and urban uses, pharmaceuticals we flush down the drain, and other toxics. [/quote]
Can we please put this nonsense to rest? The water that Sacramento residents drink from the Sacramento River is clean.
[quote]It is also inaccurate to say our deep aquifer is not sustainable. We do know that it recharges from the watersheds to the west off the coast range and somewhat also from the east. [/quote]
Source, please? We “know” this? In a letter, Paul Brady said this recharge was “postulated.” There’s a big difference between knowing and postulating. The sustainability of the deep aquifer is unknown.
[quote]It is also a very large aquifer. Davis could continue using water from our deep aquifer for many years, justs as the University has been doing for 50 years and will continue to do.[/quote]
This statement is not supported by the many experts who testified before the WAC. If that were completely true, why would there be an upper limit on the amount the city can pump from the deep aquifer, as outlined in the EIR for the deep well project?
[quote]There is nothing sustainable about sucking more water out of the river, thereby diverting more water away from the already declining delta. [/quote]
Actually, it is much more sustainable, because we know what the water flows are, surface water is completely rechargeable at known rates, and Davis would have the backup of ground water. Hence the decision to go to conjunctive use.
[quote]With climate change and ever increasing demands on river water, who is to say how long that water will be there? [/quote]
As long as rain or snow keeps falling and running off toward the sea. The likely impact of climate change on local hydrology is more rain, less snow. Not less water – on this side of the mountains.
[quote]We need to vote Measure I down, so that we can develop a more affordable, appropriate, and environmentally sustainable project for Davis.[/quote]
All the other options have been identified and studied in great detail. Which one is it you are actually advocating for here?
Yeah. Well, unfortunately a lot of the local environmental groups are co-opted by pro-development forces and special interests tied to development and hungry politicians. Not a secret.
Dear Eileen:
How do you feel about the clever “Christmas Coup” that was sprung on unsuspecting Davis citizens by the Surface Water Project proponents?
As you and others may remember, the Davis City Council hurriedly gave final approval for the Surface Water Project during the busy week before Christmas 2010 when stressed Davis’ citizens were busy, unaware, or away! Those approving the Project did not provide any explanation why the critically needed Project water right offer was available from the developer ONLY in December of 2010. Finally, December 2010 was also the last month that Councilman Saylor would be able to provide the critically needed third assured vote for the project. Mr. Saylor began his term as a Yolo County Supervisor on January 1, 2011
Although this hurried transactiom occurred “under the cover of darkness,” so to speak, I think that it is still important to bring it to light. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, don’t you know!
i like this piece and while i am leaning toward the yes side, there is something that strikes me about eileen’s piece that disturbs me. we keep hearing that this, measure i, is not about growth. and yet eileen’s advocacy is about growth. she wants to clear as many hurdles as possible for her pet project – cannery – and if removing the question about water helps, then she’s for water.
Yes, some people, like Eileen, are apparently less averse to growth or the prospect thereof when it is not in, or near, their backyards (Covell Village).
I would like to turn Growth Issue’s question around. Using only the deep well water would put an upper limit on the amount of water available to Davis. The EIR limits to total pumping allowed from the deep aquifers, and the high-selenium intermediate wells will be gradually taken off line. Thus any growth would lead to issues with peak capacity. Is it the goal of opponents of Measure I to use water capacity to prevent any growth whatsoever in Davis?
Measure I is not about growth. It is about Water.
Anti -growth factions in Davis have gone silent about actual projects coming forward, such as proposed developments near Montgomery in South Davis. I just received a notice from the City about the cannery project. The response….nothing. But the cannery project is one that Mike Harrington supported and campaigned for. It is Mike Harrington that is trying to convince people that a vote for Measure I would result in massive growth without any actual evidence to support this to stir up emotions. Eileen is a smart lady and doesn’t get stirred up easily.
Eileen:
Currently, we are not under orders from the State Water Board to cut our discharge of selenium or salts. All constituents in our water are well within state and federal standards. That is true of the discharge as well. The State Board is going to change some of those discharge standards in the future, and in that case, we might be in violation, but we are not at present. However, ith the addition of deep aquifer wells to our system, the salt and selenium issues are going away, and we do not need river water to meet our discharge standards. We do not need river water to address calcium build up in our pipes. And apparently you support the idea that we should all be using this hugely expensive treated water to irrigate our yards! Speaking of environmentally unsustainable.
We should be using recycled water or water from our shallower aquifers to irrigate, and that is exactly what the city proposes to do to cover their irrigation obligations (now that they have to pay for it) if Measure I passes. The city plans to opt out and to use the intermediate aquifer water to irrigate rather than the hugely expensive river water. So then the community not only has to pay the bloated rates from this bloated project, but we also get stuck covering the city’s share.
And Don: Why is the sustainability of the deep aquifer unknown? Because we have not done the necessary studies. Don’t you think that that might have been a good idea to determine before embarking on this boondoggle? And these experts you refer to? Would they be the same ones who originally insisted we needed 18mgd and then, when proven wrong, told us that 12 was plenty? Are these the same experts or their relatives who told us we needed a $200 million dollar upgrade to our WWTP? And now we are doing it for less than $100 million thanks to Sue Greenwald? Are these some of the same experts who stand to gain substantially if this project goes through?
Then there is the issue of risk. Let’s look at that. First we have three for-profit corporations bidding on this project. Then Violia pulls out. Then United Water pulls out. And then the CWA realizes that one company is not a bidding process. They are in trouble. Why did United Water pull out? The risk. They believed that this project was going to cost a great deal more than what it is even now predicted to cost. They felt there was too much risk for them if they were required to meet the cost expectations. So, the CWA has now coaxed United Water back into the bidding process by guaranteeing them that some of that risk is transferred to the city, and now the ratepayers get to assume that risk.
We really need to vote this project down and do some serious talking about a project we can all afford and embrace.
Once again, with addition of deep aquifer water, our water quality has vastly improved, and will continue to do so.
Ozonation also leaves carcinogens in the water. And, even with ozonation, chlorination is still required and will be used in the new project.
[quote]Sierra Club was asked to support this project…[/quote]
Since you brought it up, I will mention that the Yolano chapter of the Sierra Club voted 5-1 in support of Measure I. But after an intense lobbying effort by Sue Greenwald and others, the Mother Lode chapter decided not to take a formal position on the measure.
[quote]
Eileen: Currently, we are not under orders from the State Water Board to cut our discharge of selenium or salts. All constituents in our water are well within state and federal standards. That is true of the discharge as well. The State Board is going to change some of those discharge standards in the future, and in that case, we might be in violation, but we are not at present. [/quote]
Not really true. Look at our discharge permit. We would be in violation in the absence of a mitigation plan. The mitigation plan is surface water. Woodland’s situation is even more immediate.
[quote] And apparently you support the idea that we should all be using this hugely expensive treated water to irrigate our yards! Speaking of environmentally unsustainable. We should be using recycled water or water from our shallower aquifers to irrigate, and that is exactly what the city proposes to do to cover their irrigation obligations (now that they have to pay for it) if Measure I passes. The city plans to opt out and to use the intermediate aquifer water to irrigate rather than the hugely expensive river water.[/quote]
Unless you can tell me how we are going to re-plumb residential irrigation for separate landscape vs. potable water, this is a pointless comment.
[quote]And Don: Why is the sustainability of the deep aquifer unknown? Because we have not done the necessary studies.[/quote]
Because it is probably unknowable. It has been studied. I can point you to any number of studies of regional ground water. Or you can google them yourself. Have you?
[quote] And these experts you refer to? Would they be the same ones who …[blah blah blah]”[/quote]
[quote]
… Are these some of the same experts who stand to gain substantially if this project goes through? [/quote]
They’re the ones who testified before the WAC. Enough of the character assassination and denigration of the expert testimony. This has been the hallmark of the No on I campaign from the start.
[quote] We really need to vote this project down and do some serious talking about a project we can all afford and embrace. [/quote]
Again: which alternative are you advocating for? There’s nothing new out there. Please be specific, because otherwise ‘we need to study and discuss it more’ is just a campaign tactic.
Wolf: Great response to Eileen. I would like to hear the response of Don and Eileen, in particular, to the para below from Wolf, as anybody who reads it would have to find it damaging to the credibility of the Pro I “scientific” arguments. It is interesting that Eileen, so often sceptically of the conventional wisdom and opposing the council majority, seems to accept all their information and arguments so uncritically. Eileen was once too smart to do that?
And Don: Why is the sustainability of the deep aquifer unknown? Because we have not done the necessary studies. Don’t you think that that might have been a good idea to determine before embarking on this boondoggle? And these experts you refer to? Would they be the same ones who originally insisted we needed 18mgd and then, when proven wrong, told us that 12 was plenty? Are these the same experts or their relatives who told us we needed a $200 million dollar upgrade to our WWTP? And now we are doing it for less than $100 million thanks to Sue Greenwald? Are these some of the same experts who stand to gain substantially if this project goes through?
“Measure I is not about growth. It is about Water.”
ryan kelly: quit repeating that in a mindless fashion. you know full well you can’t grow if you have no water. now there are other ways to stop growth, measure j for example, but having worked against covell village, i understand why the no side wants to hedge their bets. let’s not be completely dismissive here.
Will: Re the Sierra Club and the local group. Please refer to my statement about local enviro groups being co-opted by development and other special interests and the politcians hungry for their money. The same attempt has been made at the Mother Lode level, but there are enough true believers there that the support failed at that level.
Don: All future development should be plumed with dual pipes to allow recycling of grey water and/or to use intermediate wells for irrigation. Of course it would be too expensive to retrofit, but maybe some how some day we might consider spending some money on that instead of boondoggles like this project.
And, I am not assassinating any characters when I ask about the experts. I named no names. Obviously, some of the experts were wrong and I just pointed that out. Other experts also just may testify to something that benefits the side they work for or hope to work for.
Herman:
[i]Why is the sustainability of the deep aquifer unknown? Because we have not done the necessary studies. Don’t you think that that might have been a good idea to determine before embarking on this boondoggle? [/i]
Asked and answered.
[i]And these experts you refer to? Would they be the same ones who originally insisted we needed 18mgd and then, when proven wrong, told us that 12 was plenty? Are these the same experts or their relatives who told us we needed a $200 million dollar upgrade to our WWTP? And now we are doing it for less than $100 million thanks to Sue Greenwald? [/i]
No, they are not the same experts. Did you watch the WAC hearings?
[i]Are these some of the same experts who stand to gain substantially if this project goes through?[/i]
No. And you (Wolf) weren’t engaging in character assassination? Just implying that their testimony was to benefit them financially?
“No. And you (Wolf) weren’t engaging in character assassination? Just implying that their testimony was to benefit them financially? “
don, don, don… they are from the dunning school of logic, it’s not assassination if no names are directly mentioned.
From today’s article:
“For unexplained reasons, seniors in this town are given a pass on school parcel taxes, not because of their financial condition, but simply because of the date on their birth certificate.”
that’s a damn lie. dunning knows full well that’s been explained countless times – state law allows senior exemptions but not economic hardships for parcel taxes.
but since dunning never attaches a name, he’s allowed to do it and it’s not libelous.
Ryan:
Measure I is about the water project, but the push behind it is all about development.
The push behind it is about water quality and having sufficient peak capacity as we retire the intermediate wells.
Don, are you on record as disputing at any point the statement that we needed 18 mgd? If so when and where? In the absence of any evidence I suspect you deferred to the “experts” as so many did on the Covell Village EIR–of course written and researched by neutral “experts.” Ditto Don: Did you dispute the $200 million estimate for a waste water project? Are you prepared to concede the “experts” were wrong? Do Sue Greenwald and others deserve credit for “calling” the “experts”? If so, have you expressed it?
Herman, that’s not what we are voting on.
Wolf, not true.
If this were true, school taxes would be about development. Not every election is about development.
How are school taxes about development?
[quote]Don, are you on record as disputing at any point the statement that we needed 18 mgd? [/quote]
Who said, at any time, that we absolutely “needed” 18 mgd?
That amount would have guaranteed sufficient peak capacity with surface water alone, and provided for some growth of the city (.5 – 1% growth?). The decision to reduce from 18 to 12 mgd was done to reduce cost. It has the drawback that we will use more well water more of the time, so the trade off is water quality.
It isn’t a matter of need or not need. It’s a matter of providing peak capacity primarily through one source or through a combination of sources. I accept the tradeoff. But I’d be surprised (somewhat) if you can find an expert anywhere who said we ‘needed’ 18 mgd. It’s a matter of planning for what might eventually be the peak capacity requirement, using only one source or continuing to use both sources.
I know, I know, too much nuance. Sorry. But there are some key questions and assumptions underlying this whole project. One of them is: will Davis grow at all? Will UCD grow at all? If so, how much, and where will the water come from to support the new students/residents?
[quote]In the absence of any evidence I suspect you deferred to the “experts” as so many did on the Covell Village EIR–of course written and researched by neutral “experts.”[/quote]
Sorry, I wasn’t involved in Covell Village at all, so I don’t know what you’re referring to here.
[quote]Ditto Don: Did you dispute the $200 million estimate for a waste water project? Are you prepared to concede the “experts” were wrong? Do Sue Greenwald and others deserve credit for “calling” the “experts”? If so, have you expressed it?[/quote]
Sue deserves credit for calling on Tchabonoglous and Schroeder and for persisting on that topic. It’s one of the reasons I endorsed her for re-election. Too bad she now dismisses their input on the surface water project.
Problems with heavy reliance on the deep wells:
[i]“In addition, on page 11 – 16 it is stated that with deep aquifer wells, a pumping depression of about 80 feet is expected in the central-east Davis area. This could increase recharge flow from areas in the vicinity of the Sacramento River, which are expected to have higher levels of arsenic and manganese.” [/i]
–From Pam Nieberg’s letter March 23 2005 appended as public comment to the UCD/City EIR.
So Pam, active in the No on I campaign, was arguing against further use of the deep wells in 2005. Now she is advocating for long-term heavy and exclusive use of them. I wonder if those issues were resolved to her satisfaction.
Wolf: The following are members of the Sierra Club Yolano group who voted to endorse Measure I. Please inform me which of them are corrupt, according to your information. Please provide evidence as well, assuming you have any. Thank you!
Alan Pryor
Bob Schneider
James Cramer
Angel Martinez
Marc Vayssières
If you are not able to “name names” and provide evidence to support your claims, please retract your earlier statement.
Final EIR for the deep wells:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/Environmental-Impact-Report-Davis-Well-Capacity-Replacement.pdf[/url]
Wolf: Please indicate which of the following water experts stand to gain financially by the passage of Measure I.
“It is unconscionable to discharge toxic wastewater into the system, as will inevitably occur without the surface water project.”
UC Davis Society for Conservation Biology
“Building this project now will save us — and our children — the higher costs that inevitably will arrive.”
Alf Brandt, California State Assembly expert on water law and policy
“Obtaining water from the Sacramento River is critical to securing a sustainable future for the City of Davis.”
UC Davis water experts George Tchobanoglous and Ed Schroeder
“Davis’ groundwater supply is becoming less secure…Today, the least expensive sustainable solution is to combine with Woodland on a joint water supply.” Jay Lund, Director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences
“I do hate to see a mistake made twice. And I think it would be a mistake to assume that the deep aquifer is invulnerable, and will stay clean indefinitely.”
Graham Fogg, UC Davis Professor of Hydrogeology
If the water situation is as dire as described above:
1) Why was the issue not raised when Covell Village was being debated a mere eight years ago?
2) Why did Eileen Samitz, the de facto leader of the No on X campaign, not raise it then?
3) Why has the argument not been raised in discussions about Davis’s future growth plans since the defeat of Covell Village?
4) Why wasn’t a moratorium put on growth?
If Pro Growth Forces Are Not in Significant Part in Favor of Measure I then:
1) Why did the initial proposal build in far too much capacity?
2) Why do the Davis C of C, building unions, and people who have been allied with pro growth forces almost to a person support Measure I? Parenthetically, the same situation exists in Woodland or is more dire we are told but the city fathers (and I will call them that) have rarely seen a project that they will not approve such as the massive one a couple of miles north of the proposed Covell Village site despite the Woodland Planning Commission voting against it 5-0 though, as far as I know, their reasons had little to do with water quantity or quality.
[quote]If the water situation is as dire as described above:
1) Why was the issue not raised when Covell Village was being debated a mere eight years ago? [/quote]
[quote]2) Why did Eileen Samitz, the de facto leader of the No on X campaign, not raise it then? [/quote]
I don’t know for sure that water issues were [i]not[/i] raised. I looked at the Covell Village EIR a while ago, and I seem to recall they were going to have a well on site.
I think it’s safe to assume that planning in Davis has proceeded on the assumption that surface water would be brought in at some point.
[quote]3) Why has the argument not been raised in discussions about Davis’s future growth plans since the defeat of Covell Village? [/quote]
I don’t understand the question.
[quote]4) Why wasn’t a moratorium put on growth? [/quote]
Because an abundant supply of water is available. The surface water project has been under discussion for years. Moreover, Davis grows as slowly as possible, and the growth rate of the last decade practically amounts to a moratorium.
[quote]If Pro Growth Forces Are Not in Significant Part in Favor of Measure I then:
I’m not following you. Pro-growth interests are very much in favor of Measure I. But so are a lot of people who are not ‘pro-growth’, including myself, Eileen, Ken Wagstaff, and others.
[/quote]
[quote]1) Why did the initial proposal build in far too much capacity? [/quote]
Because water projects are built with decades in mind. It is assumed by nearly everyone that Davis will grow somewhat. A number of years ago the voters passed a measure that stated that growth should be ‘as slow as possible’. It didn’t say no growth at all. Do you believe that in the coming decades, Davis will not, or should not, grow at all?
If Davis grows less than ½% a year, or even just grows enough to accommodate the student enrollment increase Chancellor Katehi has announced, we will need more capacity. And please note that the University is progressing steadily on that enrollment increase. She means it, and they’re doing it. Regardless of whether they live in town or on campus, they need water.
[quote]2) Why do the Davis C of C, building unions, and people who have been allied with pro growth forces almost to a person support Measure I? [/quote]
The answer seems obvious: jobs. Why do environmentalists, former leaders of opposition to Covell Village, and many with solid planning and slow-growth credentials support Measure I? In fact, a salient rejoinder to your question would be: why do so few public officials, present or former, or notable civic leaders oppose Measure I? Why is there such a paltry list of opponents?
[quote]Parenthetically, the same situation exists in Woodland or is more dire we are told but the city fathers (and I will call them that) have rarely seen a project that they will not approve such as the massive one a couple of miles north of the proposed Covell Village site despite the Woodland Planning Commission voting against it 5-0 though, as far as I know, their reasons had little to do with water quantity or quality. [/quote]
Woodland has assumed from the start that the surface water project will be built. Whether Davis joins them or not, Woodland will bring in Sacramento River water. I don’t approve of their growth policies, but to their credit they are planning for their long-term water needs. And their reasons have more to do with quality than quantity in the near term.
Eileen’s Con Agra friends need the surface water.
[i]Eileen’s Con Agra friends need the surface water.
[/i]
Mike, you have no shame.
Eileen,
just so you know, the river water will be chlorinated after ozonation whereas the West Sac water would only have been chlorinated.
dlemongello: I believe that the amount of chlorine used with ozonation is much less than what is used when chlorine is a primary disinfectant.
For example: from [url]http://www.qualitywatertreatment.com/faqs_ozone.html[/url]:
“…they do add a small chlorine residual after ozonation. This is done to prevent the possibility of the water picking up bacteria in the lengthy distribution piping required in larger municipal water supplies…
…if chlorine is added to ozonated water, all the chorine will be free chlorine, rather than combined chlorine (chloramines) and will therefore not be offensive. Combined chlorine is what causes water to smell like chlorine. Combined chlorine occurs when the chlorine has not completely oxidized the contaminants. Chlorine added to ozonated water has nothing to oxidize and therefore becomes free chlorine.”
[quote]i like this piece and while i am leaning toward the yes side, there is something that strikes me about eileen’s piece that disturbs me. we keep hearing that this, measure i, is not about growth. and yet eileen’s advocacy is about growth. she wants to clear as many hurdles as possible for her pet project – cannery – and if removing the question about water helps, then she’s for water.[/quote]
I understand this concern. In my early stages of consideration, this was a strong negative for me as I am a
“no to very, very slow growther” However, as you yourself noted, we have other mechanisms with which to slow growth and or block projects that we see as deleterious to Davis. I came to the conclusion that I could not, in good conscience, use water as a weapon in my attempt to retain the small city nature of Davis. I could not justify the potential harm to future residents of Davis who would have to live with the consequence of my willingness to limit an essential resource, harming the environment along the way, in order to protect a vision of Davis that I prefer.
First of all, I have a great deal of respect for many people who I know on both the “Yes” and “No” side of this issue. However, the debate should remain on the issue and not transgress into mean-spirited and untrue accusations. My main reason for writing the op-ed piece is that I wanted make clear why I am voting yes for a citizen–based solution to our water problem which gives us sustainable, better quality water.
As a former Planning Commissioner, good planning means addressing problems, like our water problem, sooner than later before it becomes a crisis. This is especially important when we have so many clear warning signs of the deterioration of the water quality of the intermediate aquifer.
Some Measure I opponents apparently, are trying to “spin” our water problem into being a growth issue, but the real issue is about our community dealing with our current water problem. It is disappointing to see some of the personal attacks made. But I understand that some people have strong opinions and can get emotional, and sadly, in some cases vindictive. But trying to divert the discussion off topic is also really poor form.
For the record, for those who are not familiar with my background I helped lead the “No on Measure X” campaign against Covell Village as well as the “Yes on Measure J” campaign, the “Yes on Measure R” renewal of Measure J campaign.
In regard to most of the comments from opponents of Measure I am hearing no other viable alternative plan or solutions to the water problem from them. Instead, just a constant effort to reject or delay the viable solution before us. The citizen-based Water Advisory Committee spent at least a year of analysis and process on this issue and we now have their recommendations. Our intermediate aquifer continues to deteriorate and our deep aquifer is a limited resource. A Davis-Woodland surface water project is the solution that they have recommended.
So we need to move forward now with the solution to the problems of: a) our water quality continuing to decline, b) the damage our poor quality water is causing in so many ways, including environmentally, c) averting a potential water shortage, and d) facing a larger and more expensive water problem later, if we don’t take action now.
As a closing note, my appreciation for the kind words from Medwoman, Don Shor, and Ryan Kelly regarding my article and also to and those who have contributed to keep this discussion positive.