By William Kopper, Michael Bartolic and Mark Siegler
GUEST COMMENTARY: There are reasons why California state law recognizes that economic considerations must be taken into account when finding solutions for water and wastewater. It recognizes that we have a responsibility to individuals and families below the median income to support affordable solutions for these essential services.
State of California Water Code 106.3 (a) declares that it is the “policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable and accessible water…” California’s Porter-Cologne Water Control Act says specifically that economic factors must be taken into account before a regional board can impose discharge requirements.
Because Davis must build an expensive, new wastewater treatment plan now, the proposed Woodland-Davis water project would cause the cumulative costs of Davis’ wastewater, water and garbage to be unmanageable if Measure I passes. By 2018, Davis citizens would have among the very highest utility bills in the state, by far the highest in the region, well beyond “affordable” for many citizens. With average annual municipal utility bills of $2,500 or more, it will unduly burden families, seniors and those on fixed incomes.
However, the rates you will see in your Proposition 218 notice are not the end of water rate increases. At the last minute, the City Council chose to stretch out the cost ramp-up to pay for the massive water project beyond five years by postponing the payment for some needed components and relying exclusively on debt financing. The city has lowered the rates in the first five years, but the rates will be higher than previously stated after five years. We expect monthly water bills to average $130 within 10 years, nearly quadruple current rates.
The council’s decision to base the largest component of the rates on summer use, rather than year-round use, will unfairly drive up costs to homeowners. Homeowners contribute to the attractiveness of our community by watering their landscaping and the city’s street trees. However, almost half the houses in Davis are rentals. Most of the leases for homes in Davis require the tenant to pay for city utilities. Most tenants will not pay an extra $50 to $100 per month to water the landscaping for a home that belongs to someone else. Our community will go brown and our street canopy will die.
There is an additional wrinkle to this summer usage-based scheme. Astonishingly, we have learned that the city has not been charging itself for water use. Most people are unaware that state law requires cities pay for their share of water costs according to the same principles of proportionality that would apply to any other user. Because apparently the city has not been abiding by state law, more costs have been shifted to the homeowner.
Because the city will be forced to rectify this eventually, it will have an enormous, and yet unknown, impact on the general fund, affecting other essential city services. Clearly, city staff needs to sort this embarrassing mess out before coming to voters to approve any project.
Proponents of Measure I attempt to frame the debate as the Woodland-Davis water project or nothing. This is a mischaracterization of our views. As members of the Davis Water Advisory Committee, we drafted and voted for the motion to “support a project that involves conjunctive use.” The WAC only voted to support the Woodland-Davis project if Woodland paid its full 60 percent share of all project costs. Instead, Davis will pay 30 percent more per gallon of water than Woodland. There are less costly alternatives than the proposed Woodland-Davis project that benefit Davis citizens.
When needed, the city of Davis may buy 12 million gallons per day of treated surface water (the same amount as the proposed project) in perpetuity from West Sacramento for $19.4 million. See this.
If Davis wishes to purchase less capacity, it will be at the same rate of approximately $1.6 million per million gallons per day of demand. Surface water from West Sacramento will be far less expensive.
The costs of the Woodland-Davis plant are not yet known. The state Department of Health has required additional studies of the plant because it may not be a safe distance from the Woodland sewage treatment facility. The water treatment plant may have to be covered, involving millions more in costs.
Proponents of Measure I have pointed to ozone disinfection as one of the main reasons to choose the proposed project over a West Sacramento alternative. Ozone, however, does not replace Clean Water Act requirements for a disinfection residual; therefore, chlorine will still be required. As Wikipedia reports, “Due to current regulations, systems employing ozonation in the United States still must maintain chlorine residuals comparable to systems without ozonation,” (Chlorination).
We also believe the cost advantages of the West Sacramento option will end up being much larger than the current estimate of $23 million. Because the West Sacramento pipeline costs are preliminary estimates, the consultants added a 30 percent contingency cost to this option. As the project is refined, costs almost certain will fall. The pipeline from West Sacramento to Davis is only a little longer than the pipeline from Woodland to Davis.
In 2012, Carollo Engineering conducted an analysis of a Davis-Woodland-West Sacramento option and a Davis-West Sacramento option and found “no fatal flaws” with either project with regard to existing facilities, modifications, long-term expansions, treated water conveyance, environmental constraints or water rights.
By rejecting Measure I, we will be able to pursue the responsible, most cost-effective solution of a regional partnership with West Sacramento and Woodland, or West Sacramento alone if Woodland chooses to go it alone. We will be able to get surface water when we need it.
Bill Kopper was a member of the Davis City Council from 1976 to 1984, and served as mayor from 1982 to 1984. Michael Bartolic served as a member of the Davis Parks and Recreation Commission and Mark Siegler, a professor at Sacramento State in Economics serves as the Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission. All three are members of the WAC.
“All three are members of the WAC”
I am a little confused. It was stated on Saturday that the WAC vote was 8-2 in favor of the Woodland-Davis option and yet there are three names attached to this article. Is the vote quoted in error ? Has one of you changed his mind, and is so , why ? Or was one of you an alternate ?
” Astonishingly, we have learned that the city has not been charging itself for water use ……”
Two questions and a different perspective on this.
1) As discussed at the forum, this is a process that is currently being worked on by the city. While it may not have been known to the opponents of I prior to the forum (a doubtful proposition) it certainly is now. Since several of the opponents have said that this issue does not affect Measure
I, and since the city is addressing it, why is it showing up in a “No on I ” piece 2 days after the forum ?
2) If the point of this is actually about the city’s use of water being wasteful, as several other posters have pointed out, I still do not see the relevance to Measure I. Of course we should all be conserving to a greater degree than we have in the past. However, the “No’s” seem to be lauding the maintenance of lawns and ( according to Don Shor) over watering of our trees even in the face of the obvious need for all to save water whether city or individual user.
I believe Bill Kopper voted for it as the best compromise.
Will someone help me understand whether the dollar costs projected for the financing life of this project are in real or nominal dollars (in other words, were out-year costs inflated with a known inflation metric)? If they are stated in nominal dollars then is is correct to say (assuming some level of overall wage/price inflation) that rates will “triple” or “quadruple”? This has probably been discussed and I missed it but I want to make sure I understand what this article (and the “No on I” ad in [i]The Enterprise[/i] yesterday).
I assume costs are inflation adjusted and that this is a “real” tripling (quadrupling). Mark Siegler is an economist by profession and I doubt he would disregard inflation for future cost analysis).
Can anyone help?
“Because the city will be forced to rectify this eventually, it will have an enormous, and yet unknown, impact on the general fund, affecting other essential city services.”
Doesn’t this lower the cost of water for the average homeowner? By tapping the City general fund for water the City might need to come back to the taxpayers but it doesn’t mean homeowners will pay a disproportionate amount of the City water use. If the money comes from elsewhere in the budget, perhaps sales taxes, won’t that lower the amount coming from homeowners?
The myth of the West Sacramento project continues. Why WDCWA opponents are so enamored of being customers of West Sac rather than partners with Woodland mystifies me. It doesn’t save money. The water wouldn’t be any better. And it has been made clear that there’s no better deal to be had there.
[quote]Astonishingly, we have learned that the city has not been charging itself for water use.[/quote]
The NO on I campaign is represented by two former City Council members, Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington, and the Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission, Mark Siegler. Did those individuals really have no idea this was going on?
1)On Saturday, the good professor was insisting that no alternatives should be pursued at this time. He claimed that we should wait around for all the surrounding communities to upgrade their water supply and then Davis would be in the enviable position of being able to pick from multiple suppliers. Better yet, we’d discover some better way of managing our current well system and then we could export our excess supply. TWO DAYS LATER, he’s saying we should pursue the West Sacramento alternative.
2)He doesn’t even bother to wait 2 days to contradict himself on project cost. Regarding the Woodland/Davis project, he states that the costs are not yet known (i.e. they’re preliminary costs) and therefore the actual costs may end up being even greater. For the West Sac project, he states the costs are preliminary and therefore the costs are “certain” to fall.
3)“Project Opponents Propose Reasonable and Cost-Effective Alternatives” and “There are less costly alternatives…” Gentlemen, you only proposed one alternative, West Sac. Where are the others you promised?
These folks are scrambling for a coherent argument and are making it up on the fly.
-Michael Bisch
The point was made yesterday that importing water from West Sac was somehow going to allow Anjelo T. to develop the property he owns between Davis and the bypass. I’m interested to learn why importing water from Woodland would be any different.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that selling Davis the water rights necessary for the importation of surface water, at well below market value,was designed to allow for sufficient domestic water supply to allow for peripheral growth around the borders of our fine little town. I have read over the years that all large properties surrounding Davis are owned by developers like Angelo and leased back to farm corporations. Developers sit on the side lines, biding their time, and waiting for their opportunity to build another Spring Lake development, or two, or three.
Weather it comes from West Sac or from Woodland, importing 12 million gallons of water per day allows for large scale development that would otherwise be impossible.
Will: Prop 218 has been in effect since 1996. Harriot Steiner’s law firm co-wrote the League of Cities’ implementation guide. The City of Sacramento was sued in Jan 2010 by the Howard Jarvis Foundation for doing what Davis was just caught doing. The suit was well-publicized.
Since Jan 2010, the Davis City Council and its attorneys have certified its rate structure and implementation process 4 times, without a heads up or a warning.
The WAC was given City usage data, and economic calculations for rates, as if the City was paying for its water use. These data were used by the current CC to issue the current Prop 218 rate notice. The rates are based on significantly false economic data.
Who can we trust as to the need for the JPA project, or the setting of the new rates? Not the people who gave you falsified data used to take your money and build a Taj Mahal Project.
Don’t trust the city? Vote NO on Measure I.
How the business community can tolerate yet more nonsense and city rates fraud is shocking to me.
Right on Roger!! Witness the “Christmas Coup*” that was accomplished by the Woodland-Davis Surface Water Project proponents. Rush, rush, rush, under the cover of darkness!
__________
*The Davis City Council approved the Project the week before Christmas 2010 when 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 (the third assured vote for the Project) was available to approve the Project.
As I noted in comment yesterday, I am concerned that the No On Measure I team has added a decidedly pro-growth consequence with their escalation of the West Sacramento alternative as the preferred alternative. I know that neither Bill nor Michael nor Mark want to see Davis double in size but their argument for the West Sac alternative definitely swings that door wide open.
Yesterday morning my wife and I just spent some time talking about the ebb and flow of the Forum and a lot of time talking about the heightened profile of the West Sacramento alternative. In the process of that discussion she raised a very, very good point that hasn’t been made thus far. Specifically, if and when a treated water pipeline is brought across the Yolo Bypass from West Sac it will mean that Angelo Tsakopoulos (AKT) will have a direct source of water for the 2,800 acres of developable land south of I-80 between Davis and the Bypass. When she said that, my response was “YIKES!!!!!!!!!” The more I thought about that possibility the more frightening it became.
Clearly Davis would want to bar AKT from access to the pipeline. But since the pipeline originates in West Sacramento and then crosses State lands (the Yolo Bypass) would Davis have any legal ability to bar AKT? If I were a lawyer specializing in water transmission and/or water conveyance and/or public finance I might know the answer to that question, but I’m not.
Clearly Davis would want to invoke the terms and conditions of the Pass-Through Agreement with the County to block any AKT development on those 2,800 acres (which is approximately half the current footprint of all of Davis). But the more I thought about that the more concerned I became.
First, the City no longer has the money to pay the County the annual Pass-Through Agreement annual fee. That is because of the end of State funding of the Redevelopment Agency.
Second, it is quite easy to foresee a scenario where AKT’s land no longer falls under the terms of the agreement itself. How could that happen? Actually quite simply. AKT and West Sacramento could apply to LAFCO for approval of the annexation of the AKT lands into the City of West Sacramento. If that annexation were approved (and so far I haven’t found any reason why it wouldn’t be) then the AKT lands would no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the County, and as a result would not qualify as lands covered by a County-City agreement.
Like I said to my wife yesterday, “YIKES!!!!!!!!!”
Given that the area in the south part of West Sacramento is called “Southport” I can imagine that the I-80 exit at the Yolo Fruit Stand by the entrance to the Yolo Basin Wildlife Refuge could have a new sign renaming the exit as the “Westport” exit. The Davis Legacy soccer fields on Chiles would be in Westport. The Yolo Basin Foundation volunteers would drive through Westport when they moved from their Headquarters to the Refuge.
If AKT developed those 2,800 acres at a density of 8 homes per acre, that would be over 22,000 homes, and with 2.5 persons per home that would be 56,000 people living in Westport, right on the shores of Davis.
As I said at the beginning of this comment, I know that neither Bill nor Michael nor Mark want to see Davis double in size but their argument for the West Sac alternative definitely swings that door wide open because without access to West Sacramento water AKT can not even contemplate a Westport scenario.
BTW, the fraudulent data used to set the proposed rates should be more than enough for a win in Yolo County Superior Court as to those causes of action, but we hope the matter settles without a full trial, if possible.
The rates case was filed to ensure that whatever rates the city uses for whatever project, those rates comply with Prop 218.
I have heard somewhere that the City allegedly used over a half million dollars in “free” water, and if that is true, the City should pay the water fund back several million dollars. The City of Sacramento had several years to pay its utility funds back, and fix the meter mess, and I expect Davis will have some time to clean up the mess.
Will has a good point. Did Mike Harrington, Sue Greenwald and Mark Seigler know about the accounting practices of the City’s water use before now? And if they didn’t, or weren’t aware of it, why?
(I think we know the answer to the last question.)
The letter from these 3 folks uses phrasing that makes me certain that Mike Harrington either wrote this letter or major portions of it. The reference to rate proportionality as a “mess” is an example.
We have Measure J as a tool to control growth. Why should the current citizens of Davis put up with increasingly poor water quality as another tool to control growth. That seems to be what No on I is asking us to do.
There are three reasonable fear-based talking points that the No on I group can leverage.
[b]1. Developers are behind it because it will allow them to develop the periphery and it will cause sprawl.[/b]
This is like saying that increased access to high quality oats will cause more horses just because a few people want more horses. We have horse-trading pass-through agreements, Measure J and a large percentage of anti-horse people living in the area. This is a false argument, but it does cause irrational fear in some voters.
[b]2. The surface water project will result in undisclosed increased costs in the future.[/b]
The No folks never include that we will face increased costs and probably penalties if do NOT update our water works. The rational argument should be based on a comparison of all probable costs, not the surface water project compared to the status quo. The fear of future rate increases will impact some voters.
[b]3. The rate structure is unfair to home owners.[/b]
This is the only real and rational argument that the No folks have. It is the same that Dunning is stuck on. It is the one that may force me to change my vote from a Yes to a No.
3.Jeff, this is a false argument. The rate structure is not frozen with the passage of Measure I. There is plenty of opportunity to continue to refine and adjust the rates after passage to ensure they are as equitable as possible. Your Yes vote on Measure I is authorizing the City Council to do just that. A No vote is telling the City Council that the project is not needed and therefore further refinement of the rates is a waste of time.
-Michael Bisch
I am a homeowner. Using the rate calculator on the City’s website I determined that my monthly rates, based on my historic use, will be as follows:
May 2013 – $22.25
Jan 2014 – $25.80
Jan 2015 – $21.65
Jan 2016 – $25.46
Jan 2017 – $27.63
Jan 2018 – $32.45
I’m not getting how this gradual increase in rates ($10 per month spread out over 5 years) is unfair to home owners.
In the end, the rates will be essentially the same regardless of what project we buy, for the simple reason that there is no cheap option. Why would we not buy the project that the WAC and CC determined was the best fit for our needs. The vote is to determine what project we are going forward with, not what the rates will be. The rates are a separate issue and should not be used to cloud your judgement.
roger bockrath said . . .
[i]”The point was made yesterday that importing water from West Sac was somehow going to allow Anjelo T. to develop the property he owns between Davis and the bypass. I’m interested to learn why importing water from Woodland would be any different.”[/i]
roger, did my expanded discussion above answer your question?
In the Woodland scenario the north/south pipeline would deliver water that is produced and treated and controlled by Davis. In the West Sacramento scenario the east/west pipeline would deliver water that is produced and treated and controlled by West Sacramento. If West Sacramento and AKT decided that they wanted to use a public water pipeline to consummate the purchase and delivery of treated water, Davis would be an external party with no standing in that contract.
Hey Jeff – I have worked hard to understand the rate structure issue and am not sure how it is unfair to homeowners. The consumption-based part of the bill seems to be what has most people upset (and the piece that Mr Dunning focused on). I see his example but suspect that I may simply have a different definition of “fair” than he has. None of us wants to experience a “peak-use shortage” that would occur if at the highest demand periods our system does not have the capacity to provide what we all need AT THAT TIME. The point is that users of large amounts of capacity at that time (be they the city, apartments or single family dwellings) are what requires us to create a system that will respond to peak needs. What is unfair about asking these peak demand “drivers” to pay proportionately more for the infrastructure that their water use places on the system?
Now, I may still be misunderstanding the consumption-based fixed costs of this project and so someone can correct me. But this is how I view it. If our commitment to each other as a community is that we agree that everyone should have all the water they want (need?) when they want it then shouldn’t those whose consumption cause us to have a larger (more expensive) system chip in more to make that larger capacity possible? What is fair/unfair in this scenario?
Matt, just like the peripheral growth argument on the north end of town, this seems like a red herring to me, i.e. an unnecessary distraction. Davis is going to build, finance, and control an east/west pipeline and then let AKT tap into it against our will? Seems absurd.
-Michael Bisch
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”The WAC was given City usage data, and economic calculations for rates, as if the City was paying for its water use. These data were used by the current CC to issue the current Prop 218 rate notice. [b]The rates are based on significantly false economic data.[/b]”[/i]
No Mike the rates are not based on significantly false economic data. The five years of annual cost budgets prepared by the City and provided to Bartle Wells and me are based on rigorous economic studies by Kennedy-Jenks, Brown and Caldwell, Carollo Engineers, NWA Financial Advisors, Bartle Wells and City Staff. Your assertion could not be farther from the truth.
Then the historical usage data was provided for all 16,433 meters in the City. The rates were modeled and calculated using that very accurate meter reading data.
The rates are based on 100% accurate economic and use data.
For the record, the use data contained bi-monthly ccf readings for over 230 meters totaling over 277,000 ccf (6% of the overall aggregate ccf total). By comparison, DJUSD had 43 meters and 123,00 ccf.
You know I agree with some of your arguments, but try not to stray into the realm of fantasy like you did in this comment.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”I have heard somewhere that the City allegedly used over a half million dollars in “free” water, and if that is true, the City should pay the water fund back several million dollars. The City of Sacramento had several years to pay its utility funds back, and fix the meter mess, and I expect Davis will have some time to clean up the mess.”[/i]
Actually Mike the 277,000 ccf and half a million dollar figure was presented multiple times to the WAC during the course of their deliberations.
What you are leaving out as “the rest of the story” is that the Water Enterprise Fund used just short of half a million dollars in “free” financial services provided from the City’s Finance Department. The debits and credits that those two accounting entries create offset one another. If there is anything that is “free” it is the very small net difference left over after you apply the debits and credits.
You are not quite in the realm of fantasy on this one (like you were in the one above), but you are definitely in the realm of creative writing.
BTW did everyone enjoy the Paul Harvey-based ad during the Super Bowl [url]http://youtu.be/AMpZ0TGjbWE[/url] Now that was “the rest of the story!”
Ryan Kelly said . . .
[i]”[b]We have Measure J as a tool to control growth.[/b] Why should the current citizens of Davis put up with increasingly poor water quality as another tool to control growth. That seems to be what No on I is asking us to do.”[/i]
Actually Ryan we would not have Measure J to control growth on the 2,800 acres referenced in my post above. If the water was being purchased directly by AKT from West Sacramento and delivered through the pipeline across the Yolo Bypass, and AKT and West Sacramento agree to annexation of those 2,800 acres into the City of West Sacramento, then Measure J would not apply.
I see you’re commenting again, Michael, and hoping you’ll respond about your comments/tactics (eighth request):
“MH: But, why do you say the things you do? For example, you still haven’t answered this old question: ‘Michael, given the evidence provided by Don Shor re. Sacramento River water quality and Davis Enophile’s geography lesson, why do you keep insisting that: ‘We believe strongly it’s (‘that dirty river water’ is) an issue, and will remain an issue’. ??????”
And, (since John Munn doesn’t respond):
“1.) Why did you file your lawsuit now rather than after the measure has been resolved? 2.) Who is in the “Yolo Ratepayers” organization and what is its purpose? 3.) Who is financing the suit? and 4) Will the new group be attempting to influence voting on the election?”
Thank you, Matt. So as a customer of West Sac, we would have no influence over that sale of water. The difference is that if there is an agreement with West Sac, then we build the pipeline across the bypass and provide ready access to AKT…and still have zero influence over that sale of water?
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Matt, just like the peripheral growth argument on the north end of town, this seems like a red herring to me, i.e. an unnecessary distraction. Davis is going to build, finance, and control an east/west pipeline and then let AKT tap into it against our will? Seems absurd.
-Michael Bisch”[/i]
Michael, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this point. I learned long ago to never, never, never underestimate Angelo Tsakopoulos.
I see an elephant in the room. I don’t plan on ignoring that elephant.
Ryan Kelly said . . .
[i]”Thank you, Matt. So as a customer of West Sac, we would have no influence over that sale of water. The difference is that if there is an agreement with West Sac, then we build the pipeline across the bypass and provide ready access to AKT… and still have zero influence over that sale of water?”[/i]
Ryan, how the details might play out in such a scenario is clearly unknown, but as I said to Michael Bisch, I learned long ago to never, never, never underestimate Angelo Tsakopoulos. Further, if you were West Sac wouldn’t you see all that tax revenue from “Westport” as a huge carrot at the end of a stick? AKT would build a whole brand new services infrastructure and then turn it over to the City. That looks like low maintenance and high return for West Sac. if it really did pencil out for West Sac they could simply say to Davis, [i]”We will sell you the water and we will build the pipeline across the Yolo Bypass ourselves. That’s our deal. Take it or leave it.”[/i]
To Bill Kopper, Michael Bartolic, and Mark Siegler:
[i]Our community will go brown and our street canopy will die.[/i]
Your statement is simply not true.
If you believe that we make better decision through a rational, respectful, fact based discussions, then you should endorse the work of the WAC and vote for the project they determined was in our best interests. Everything else is just false drama intended to confuse and confound a rational decision.
We are voting on the project. The rates are an important, but separate issue. Don’t allow yourself to be confused by the drama.
It’s been clear for almost 2 years now that Harrington has no intention of responding to flaws pointed out in his reasoning, glaring errors and omissions in his statements, inconsistencies, etc. Come to find out, the same is true of the entire No On I team. What we have is an ongoing cycle of the No team throwing something against the wall in the hope that some of it sticks, within minutes having their flaws pointed out for them, only to be met with….deafening silence. David galantly steps up from time to time to defend their reasoning for them. But inevitably David’s defenses usually contain similar flaws. It’s not at all clear to me how this posturing serves the community well.
-Michael Bisch
[quote][b]”Project Opponents Propose Reasonable and Cost-Effective Alternatives”[/b][/quote]What “reasonable and cost-effective alternatives” have the project opponents offered in the article? Does that mean that they’ve brought up old alternatives that have been found less “reasonable and cost-effective” or more unworkable than the Davis-Woodland alternative?[quote]”In 2012, Carollo Engineering conducted an analysis of a Davis-Woodland-West Sacramento option and a Davis-West Sacramento option and found “no fatal flaws” with either project with regard to existing facilities, modifications, long-term expansions, treated water conveyance, environmental constraints or water rights.”[/quote]Finding “no fatal flaws” is nice, but a low bar indeed. Have studies revealed any fatal flaws in the Davis-Woodland project “with regard to existing facilities, etc.”?
Another interesting fact learned at Saturday’s forum…UCD relies on deep wells and apparently will continue to. Any comment on that?
And the fact (I think) that our deep wells are on UCD property. How does that work?
Thx.
UC Davis uses surface water from Solano, and deep wells. Our deep wells would possibly conflict with UCD deep wells.
these are two good points to be made Don….especially the latter. I have not seen that mentioned….
Speaking of wells, Don, I realize that Davis wells eventually have to be closed because they become too contaminated to use. The frequency and number given by the debate expert seem surprisingly high. Do you have your hands on numbers (deep wells, other wells, total drilled, total closed because of contamination)?
This is a fundamental question about fairness and capacity.
Suppose the City has two people, A and B, and their water uses are these:
A: 100 ccf per year. Peak demand of 10 ccf/month.
B: 400 ccf per year, where 300 of which are for irrigation during the summer. Peak demand of 110 ccf/month
The City has one water source, with flow capacity of 120 ccf/month. X is just enough to meet peak demand.
Now another person, C, moves into the City. C needs this:
C: 200 ccf per year, all year round. Peak demand of 20 ccf/month.
The City cannot meet the demand and wants to build another well just like the first one. This will double the peak capacity to 240 ccf/month. This new will has an excess capacity of 100 ccf/month that neither A, B, or C will use.
The new well will cost $100. How should they split the bill for the construction of the new well?
A should pay: $?
B should pay: $?
C should pay: $?
City should pay: $?
Edgar
I think the need for additional capacity to accept the new customer is to be covered by the new customers hookup fee. The hookup fee is separate from the rate fee. The hookup fee has not been a part of the rate discussion as of late.
I advocate for the City to increase its hookup fee considerably. At one point their was a side discussion of how increasing the hookup fee and allowing Con Agra to go forward with its development plans would inject millions into the water fund. Maybe Toad would like to remind everyone of his ideas…
JustSaying
Lots of information on Davis wells and well water quality at this site:
[url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/water/water-quality-information[/url]
Thanks, DE. I think we might have heard about the hookup issue when Sue noted that our present development fees are inadequate if we have a new project. I’d guess that would be solved by raising any fees that have to do with building and improving the system to deliver water to new developments. Significantly higher fees seems a long overdue action anyway.
So after reading through this op-ed again, I’m trying to imagine exactly what the No on I team thinks is supposed to happen if the voters reject Measure I.
— Are two councilmembers supposed to go back to West Sac and try to re-negotiate the terms that were rejected earlier? Which two? After all, Sue Greenwald — not once, not twice, but three times during the forum — denigrated Joe Krovoza and Brett Lee as having ’emotional buy-in’ to the Woodland-Davis project. “I mean really negotiate? I mean, c’mon guys,” she said. So who, on the council that voted 5 – 0 for WDCWA, is going to lead this negotiating team? And who on the staff is going to do the work to develop another option, since these folks clearly don’t trust staff? Are we going to have to pay a whole new set of consultants to give us advice, since they don’t trust or believe the ones that have weighed in to date?
— How much further behind do they think we can get on our water fund, or do they want to propose a rate hike to make up for the deficit that’s been created over the last couple of years?
— Asked about a backup option, Sue Greenwald’s comment was, ““We’re not part of any group. The question is kind of irrelevant.” So, is this the backup option being presented in this op-ed? Because I don’t see any actionable items here, any plan that could go forward in any kind of timeframe that might mitigate the state’s regulatory actions.
What I really suspect would happen, if the voters reject the project, is the small handful of opponents would just go back to their lives and jobs and leave it to the council and the commissioners and the city staff to come up with another plan. Which they would then oppose again.
I don’t know Don, it makes sense to me. Once the voters reject Measure I, Sue through the force of her personality, is going to get Cabaldon to offer up better terms than was offered to Krovoza and Lee. Cabaldon is sure to recognize that Sue is in a superior bargaining position given the lack of a back-up plan (back-up plans are irrelevant afterall). Cabaldon will surely also recognize that West Sac is utterly dependent upon Davis, not the other way around.
Sue’s entire commentary on the dais was fanciful. Not one statement made by No On I at the debate can withstand even superficial scrutiny.
-Michael Bisch
I’m disappointed that you two aren’t giving Sue any credit for her backup plan.
At least twice during the debate, she endorsed her “no action for decades” alternative. That is: Do nothing until we get desperate, then shop around with all of our neighbors who build excess water capacity in the coming years and have them low-bid against each other to meet our critical needs.
It is surprising that she’d label the excellent question “irrelevant”–I think it just caught her off-guard. Advocates of a “no” vote obviously need to tell citizens what should/would happen if we follow their voting advice.
No, no, JustSaying, you’re right. I stand corrected. Sue is a very shrewd negotiator. The fact that her plan on its face is so patently silly must mean that underlying it is a very clever ploy. Psst! Psst! Psst!
-Michael Bisch
On page 14 of this report ([url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Water-Quality/Sacramento-River-Water-Quality-Assessment-for-the-DWWSP.pdf[/url]), it says the selenium level at the proposed intake site is 0.005 mg/L, that is 5 ppb. The regulation is going to be 4 ppb. Does this mean that SWP also has to treat selenium?
Sue deserves a lot of credit. If you can’t see that so be it. She has always asked the hard inconvenient questions that matter to the constituents. She has often been put down by her peers for it but has often been on to something in the end. That may well be the case here too.
Edgar: no, that page says “ND(value) = Constituent was not detected above the analytical Reporting Limit.”
dlemongello: I agree Sue gets a lot of credit for things she did while on the council, which is why I endorsed her for re-election. But I felt that her performance at the recent forum was appalling. She personally attacked Matt Williams twice, Alan Pryor twice, ridiculed Joe and Brett. She asserted that Brett Lee is ’emotionally invested’ in the surface water project. She made several statements that are unsupportable or, to be polite about it, arguable. In the past on the Vanguard, Sue and I and others have had cogent discussions of the specific issues regarding the water project. She didn’t show any of those aspects Saturday.
Don, I think much of what you say here is fair, and maybe I missed some of what you say, though I was there. I wonder when she was asked to be on the panel and how much she prepared herself. Her (non)answer about alternative plans was surprising. She certainly does seem to think the West Sac plan has not been fully explored and would be less expensive. I need to do a bit more homework on the W Sac costs, although part of the point is the costs for West Sac could still be unknown.
dlemongelo, I can only see what I have witnessed in my 4-5 years of interaction with Sue. I am in no position to give or deny credit for what she did before. There were no surprises for me at the debate Saturday. Her performance matches exactly with what I have personally witnessed of her in her official capacity in policy discussions and in the council chambers.
I’m curious, dlemongello, what did you think of Sue’s performance/behavior Saturday? Did you think she make sound, coherent arguments? Did her statements strike you as fact-based? Did you get the sense that she had a clear strategy for dealing with the community’s water challenge?
-Michael Bisch
Re: Don
I understand, but does it mean that the equipment was not good enough to tell if selenium would meet regulation? I am asking this because I want to record definitely the selenium level for comparison. It is not meaningful if I write 6.1 ppb for shallow well, and write “less than 5 ppb” for SWP, when the regulation limit is 4 ppb.
While selenium is not the only constituent, it will affect the overall cost estimation.
I understand this is not your job to answer these. So thank you for clarification.
The simple answer, Edgar, is that there is no natural source for selenium in Sacramento River water, so it isn’t a concern. There is not a detectable level of selenium in the river water. [url]http://www.cityofsacramento.org/utilities/media-room/documents/2011CCRWebPDF.pdf[/url]
Her style was as usual, straight shooting and not too concerned about tact (I also lack the tact gene though I work hard to compensate for the lack of it). I do believe she has talked to many experts who can not say their true thoughts in public because of their jobs. The pst, pst thing was hysterical. But the stakes are of course very serious. I do believe she thinks the West Sac alternative has not been fully explored and if it were, still possibly offers potential for a better deal. I do believe her when she talks about layers of misinformation and I do believe conflicts of interest have been involved in this process. And I know she has talked to experts about short term options with the deep aquifer water that would give us more flexibility and time to figure things out if we were not trying to meet Woodland’s timeline.
I think Mark Siegler hit it on the head, this plan looks good but is this plan affordable/worth the price? I do not have the answer, but it is very expensive. And believe it or not, I do not know yet how I’ll vote on I.
[i]And I know she has talked to experts about short term options with the deep aquifer water that would give us more flexibility and time to figure things out if we were not trying to meet Woodland’s timeline. [/i]
This is an issue Sue and I and others discussed here in great detail in 2011, and on which we strongly disagree. I believe her proposal then, as now, for our use of the deep aquifer is very, very irresponsible. At one point she asked Dianna Jensen from the dais if we could meet our selenium requirements by means of the deep wells that we had on line and scheduled. To summarize: the answer was “yes, but” and the only part Sue heard was the “yes.”
The “but” part is that we would almost literally have to run the six deep wells 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, hope there was never an equipment failure, hope that none of those wells interfere with UCD, hope that no contamination occurs from above, and hope that the aquifer continues to recharge fully given a nearly five-fold increase in pumping (combined increase by UCD and the city).
If everything we hope for transpires — in other words, if we get really lucky — then “yes” we can meet the selenium requirements by blending deep water with shallower water.
Dr. Fogg addressed, briefly, these concerns at the forum. Sue and I went around and around about it before. What happens if one of those things goes wrong? We have an instant water shortage. And ultimately we are likely to have an inability to meet peak capacity in just a few years (2017 by best estimates) in any event.
So I consider her views on this subject to be misinformed and skewed by her bias. She heard what she wanted to hear, and not the full answer. And to repeat: I believe her proposal, and those of the opponents of the surface water project, regarding use of the deep well to be irresponsible and to be unsupported by expert testimony.
Inability to meet peak capacity isn’t just an inconvenience. It is a public safety issue.
Among the comments by Dr. Fogg that I was able to transcribe from the video:
“When I arrived here in the late 80’s the notion was that the water quality in the shallow and intermediate depth aquifers … were invulnerable to contamination. As I’ve lived in the area I’ve seen increasing contamination of those aquifers.
If you produce more water from the deep aquifers contamination will move down …
In terms of the water quantity the source of the water in the deep aquifer is not known. …
We don’t know what the capacity of that system is to handle water supply for the campus and the city.”
Asked to respond to Mark Siegler’s comment that ““The deep water aquifer is replenishing each and every year.”
Dr. Fogg:
“We don’t think the system is in overdraft right now, but all you have to do is look over the river to South Sacramento. …[we’re] Like sitting ducks in terms of water quality over the long term.”
“I do believe she has talked to many experts who can not say their true thoughts in public because of their jobs.”
I do believe this no longer is a credible claim, if it ever was. The voices Sue alone hears would have been revealed to the rest of us by now if these many secret sources actually existed and actually are experts.
Thank you Don.
* * *
[b]On how to pay for SWP[/b]
I think the cost of SWP is why it is necessary to talk about the water rate and whether City will pay its own bills. I don’t know the exact amount that the City had not been paying and will not pay for the SWP. But we could see the difference with hypothetical numbers.
If the City uses 10% of water and does not pay, and 50% of City Revenue does not come from ratepayers, then when City starts paying, each ratepayer will save 5%.
If the construction cost of a new plant is 200% of current capacity expenses, and the City pays for it, then each ratepayer will save 33% by asking the City to pay its share by revenue.
And every time a new ratepayer joins Davis, everyone will pay less because they help to split the cost of the excess. This implies that the general trend of the bills each ratepayer pays should decrease.
[quote]”I do believe she has talked to many experts who can not say their true thoughts in public because of their jobs.”
I do believe this no longer is a credible claim, if it ever was. The voices Sue alone hears would have been revealed to the rest of us by now if these many secret sources actually existed and actually are experts. [/quote]
i think sue is being honest that she has / relies on the view of some experts. we have seen some of them come forward, walt sadler, graham fogg, pam gunnell’s husband whose name escapes me at the moment, to a less degree schroeder and tchabonglas (sp). the problem seems to be that only two of the experts around still agree with her. she’s making the same arguments she did a few years ago and they have changed their view. what does that tell you?
It tells me either it is time to really see if West Sac wants to deal or not, or to just say screw it and go into debt to buy the expensive Volvo (Woodland option) because the old Chevy (pumping a lot of groundwater) just can’t hack it anymore.
This is pretty much what the mayor said at the debate. Only you’ve said it so much more elegantly. (He added that it’s clear that West Sac doesn’t want to deal, a stand which was repeated that in their letter last week.)
Donna, the most recent cost estimates of the Woodland-Davis CWA project vs. the West Sacramento alternative are:
[b]Alternative 2c: 12 mgd Davis-Only West Sacramento Alternative[/b]
$___ 309,000 — Agency Administration
$___ 000,000 — Program Management
$_2,258,000 — Environmental and Permitting
$_1,506,000 — Land/RW Acquisitions
$____ 37,000 — Capital Contingency
$13,499,000 — Engineering, Legal and Administrative
____________ — Construction
$___417,000 — Intake (includes 30% contingency)
$__ 000,000 — Raw Water Pipeline
$14,053,000 — Water Treatment Plant (includes 30% contingency)
$43,790,000 — Davis Treated Water Pipeline (includes 35% contingency)
___________ — In-Line Booster Pump Station (includes 40% contingency)
$_3,476,000 — Costs Expended (Sept. 2009 – June 2011)
$14,656,000 — Local Facility Costs
[u]$19,400,000 — West Sacramento Connection Fee[/u]
$113,401,000 — Total
[b]DWWSP Option A, WAC Alternative 4b: 30 mgd DWWSP Project w/ozone; Woodland: 18 mgd, Davis: 12 mgd[/b]
$_1,710,000 — Agency Administration
$_1,650,000 — Program Management
$_2,850,000 — Pre-Design
$__ 380,000 — Water Supply
$__ 770,000 — Environmental & Permitting
$2,000,000 — Land/RW Acquisitions
$3,510,000 — Capital Contingency
$1,450,000 — Permit Fees & Construction Counsel
___________ — Construction
___________ — Design, CM, Eng. Services During Const., etc.4
$_5,760,000 — Intake Facility Construction
$10,470,000 — Raw Water Pipelines Construction
$42,860,000 — Regional Water Treatment Facility Construction
$22,240,000 — Davis Treated Water Pipeline Construction
$_3,476,000 — Costs Expended (Sept 2009 – June 2011)
[u]$14,655,000 — Local Facility Costs[/u]
$113,781,000 — Total
If one is a Volvo, then so is the other.
What does the $230 million figure correspond to? Is that what Woodland and Davis have to pay together for the SWP?
Yes Edgar, that is what it is, although the number that has been shared by the WDCWA is $245 million.
$31 million for capital improvements to the existing Woodland and Davis local water distribution systems (16 for Woodland and 15 for Davis)
$31 million for treated water pipelines to get the water from the treatment plant to the local distribution systems (9 for the 3 miles to Woodland and 22 for the 7 miles to Davis)
$183 million for the cost to produce the water (106 for Woodland and 77 for Davis)
$245 million total