Bob Dunning recently wrote, “We have been told over and over again that Measure I is about ‘clean water’ for all residents of Davis.”
He added, “Unfortunately for the Clean Water advocates, though, when you delve into the details of the plan, it appears not everyone in town will be eligible for the same access to all this clear, sparkling, cures-what-ails-you Sacramento River water. In fact, when I asked this ‘equal access’ question of city staff, the answer that came back was startling.”
“During the summer months,” Mr. Dunning cites, “the deep wells will be used to cover the peak water use, which is typically from about 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. And if you live close to a deep well, you will mainly be receiving well water during this time. After the peak is over, the well will shut off and you will again be receiving surface water.”
However, the answer should not have been nearly as startling as it appeared to some. You see, we reported on this nearly two years ago on March 23, 2011 – nearly six months before the September 6, 2011 water vote.
Actually, one of the funnier things is that some of the people who said they were stunned by this news even commented on this article nearly two years ago.
Here is the article in full from 2011.
Report Suggests That Some Residents Will Remain on Groundwater While Others Will Move to Riverwater –
The Vanguard received an anonymous letter purporting to be from a member of city staff. Along with this note was a letter from Alan Pryor to Interim Public Works Director Bob Clarke dated March 1, 2011. The anonymous letter claimed Mr. Pryor’s letter was sent to the council and also the Natural Resources Commission.
According to the letter, “Not everyone in Davis is going to get the ‘good’ water.” Writes the anonymous author, “He [Mr. Pryor] explained that some people in West and South Davis will still only get well water, yet pay twice as much while the rich folks in Mace Ranch get all the good, low TDS [total dissolved solids] water for their yards and homes.”
Furthermore, it claims that “Public Works does not want this info to get out” and it detailed efforts by which city staff prevented the letter from doing so.
The problem is very clear from a political standpoint: some citizens will benefit from the high quality river water, while others will remain using groundwater, despite everyone paying for the water project that will triple their bill.
Writes Alan Pryor in his letter, “I would venture to say that the City would have some very, very disgruntled citizens if only citizens in certain parts of the City were to receive low TDS river water while those furthest from the terminus bringing in the river water would still only get well water while still having to pay an extra $60/month expected to be added to everyone’s water bills in the future.”
Alan Pryor acknowledged sending the original letter to city staff, but said that he had hoped to deal with it internally rather than sending it immediately to the media for broader public dissemination.
In a response from the City of Davis, interim City Manager Paul Navazio indicated that prior to the Vanguard correspondence, he was unaware of the letter from Mr. Pryor to the acting Public Works Director.
Nevertheless, he argues that he is well aware of the issues presented in the letter. Mr. Navazio writes, “In reviewing this letter, it does not appear to me that there are any issues raised therein that the engineering team for the surface water project are not aware of and actively working through.”
He continues, “This project has always contemplated a shift to Sacramento river water as the MAIN water supply source, albeit with the ability to supplement this supply with our highest quality groundwater during the peak-demand summer months. “
“The groundwater would be supplied by as few as 5 of our highest quality wells, for a few months out of the year,” Mr. Navazio continues.
While he downplays the overall concern, it clearly remains a problem that the project engineers are studying, as there is a need to blend the groundwater with the surface water to both “maintain highest quality water supply” and “address uniformity of water quality issues across the City.”
The problem is that this appears to be more of a technological challenge than the city manager acknowledges in his response to the Vanguard.
One of the chief concerns about Mr. Pryor’s letter actually deals with the issue of corrosiveness and copper discharge, along with the continued use of water softeners.
Part of the problem, however, is that riverwater will be distributed unequally throughout the city. Writes Mr. Pryor, “The desirability of providing uniformly [sic] blending of river and well water produces some challenging operational and plumbing problems for the water delivery side of the City utilities.”
He continues, “The possible difficulties lie in the fact that the treated river water is scheduled to be brought in to the north part of the City while existing groundwater wells are strewn throughout the City and perimeter, and waters pumped from them are not taken to a central distribution point.”
He continues, “I have not looked at the City’s existing distribution system to see how this might be accomplished but it will likely involve installation of a circulation system carrying treated river water to the south and west sides of Davis and possibly some storage capacity to equalize flows during periods of high use. Of course, this will likely entail a cost of millions of dollars but in the scope of a total of $250 million in water supply and wastewater plant costs, the overall relative costs are possibly small.”
“Failure to provide a uniform blended water throughout the City cause even greater copper corrosion byproducts to enter the City’s sewer because people receiving intermittent water quality with inconsistent hardness will tend to continue to use softeners on a year round basis while users receiving river water may unknowingly have a new copper corrosion problem due to the inherent corrosivity of the new water from the river,” he writes.
The crux of the problem is laid out here and it is that “the question of properly blending water is also a problem that absolutely has to be addressed for political purposes.”
He argues that the system where some are receiving river water and others are receiving groundwater “would be a very tough sell to make to the furthest removed neighborhoods because it would be inherently unfair to those citizens in those furthest removed neighborhoods. Indeed, the fact that some neighborhoods might alternatively not ever see the benefits of the presumably higher quality river water was never disclosed to the citizens in any public forum or literature on the project.”
Mayor Joe Krovoza declined comment on this issue until he could be better versed on the issue.
The city manager’s response, while downplaying the problem, does not deny that the problem currently exists.
There is some belief, however, that the issue of use of groundwater only will arise during the drier summer months when river water use would be more restricted. This is precisely, according to these sources, when the city cut a deal with developer Angelo Tsakopoulos for summer water rights.
The city could have received enough water to cover all summer water usage, however, there were apparently problems with the EIR for that quantity.
The other issue is the one that both the anonymous letter writer and Mr. Pryor raise. Namely that this issue has not been discussed in public forums and the city appears to be trying to keep it quiet, perhaps trying to avoid the issue ahead of the Prop 218 required process for protesting the rate hikes.
Paul Navazio denies that there is an issue of the information being “supressed” related to this project.
“I don’t know where this assertion comes from,” he responds. “Again, there are a number of engineering, design and implementation issues being studied and worked through that will ultimately address (and mitigate) many of the challenges posed by a conversion to the surface water as our main water supply…..all consistent with the overall goal of ensuring a reliable, quality water supply for the community.”
Nevertheless, this is the first that anyone in the public appears to have heard the issue that there may be some inequality in the quality of water based on where one lives, despite the fact that everyone will be paying a huge increase for the water.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
As extra water is banked into the ground won’t water quality improve for everyone including those that get some well water during peak use?
Mr Toad – If by “banking” you mean using river water to deliberately recharge aquifers that is only under study in Woodland (as far as I know, no specific plan to do it is in place at this time) and has not even been studied in Davis. I think this was pointed out by one Davis resident at a recent City-sponsored forum.
FYI–My understanding is that the irrigation district on the west side of Yolo County (water from Lake County) was built over a century ago to allow for 25% of the water flowing through the irrigation canals to recharge ground water. These unlined canals are still in use and contribute to recharging except in years of significant rainfall shortfalls. Pretty forward looking system that has been very well maintained.
At one of the last WAC meetings Herb flat stated the disparity was fixed. I have the tape. Was he correct?
Please be more specific about this issue. Is it still true, if it ever was?
“…there may be some inequality in the quality of water based on where one lives….” Do critics of this “disparity” mean to say that our well water is and will be inferior in quality to our new river water?
Throughout this entire process we have been discussing a “conjunctive use” water system. For the benefit of those still unclear on the concept…
“[i]Conjunctive use is the coordinated management of surface water and groundwater supplies to maximize the yield of the overall water resource. An active form of conjunctive use utilizes artificial recharge, where surface water is intentionally percolated or injected into aquifers for later use. A passive method is to simply rely on surface water in wet years and use groundwater in dry years[/i].”
[url]http://www.water-ed.org/watersources/subpage.asp?rid=&page=387[/url]
This is an engineering problem, and one that will probably be a work in progress as the ‘ultimate’ answer will probably require additional storage capacity that does not currently exist. But why is this news? The water you get in different parts of town today is not exactly the same as there is no central mixing station to ensure that the water from every well is completely mixed with every other well. Turning this into a ‘crisis’ is complete nonsense.
But probably makes a difference in an election. Announcing one such startling crisis every other day has seemed effective in raising concerns with voters.
Thank you, Just Saying.
More coming.
[ CBFR overcharges small water users ] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2013-02-21-0231-EqualDiscountCalculator.htm[/url])
In the following screenshot, CBFR overcharges small, steady user (User B) by 20% due to the design of Supply Charge.
[img]http://skylet.net/docs/2013-02-21-0302-EqualDiscountCBFRComparison.png[/img]
[quote]But why is this news?[/quote]
Because a major selling point of the WDCWA project is soft water. If some areas of the city aren’t going to get the benefit of the surface water from their taps until “someday” at an unspecified additional cost, they may be disinclined to vote for the project.
.
If the water will not be blended and they are saying that some neighborhoods will get well water “during peak usage periods”, then I suspect that there are plumbing infrastructure impediments to EVER getting the good river water to these neighborhoods. My suspicion at this point is that the city staff and WAC and others KNOW this and have kept it quiet.
We need three additional disclosures:
1. Which areas specifically will get well water?
2. When specifically will these areas get well water?
3. Identity of areas where there are current impediments for delivering river water.
Those areas getting well water should pay a lower rate for a lower quality product.
The fact that this information was not specifically disclosed (and the “Conjunctive use” description that Mark West posted does not cut it by a long shot), is another black eye for the City in the trust area.
Policy at the national and state level seems to be more and more driven by politics than facts, truth and common sense. It appears that this has percolated down to the local level also. City staff should not be involved in anything related to the manipulating of voters. Unfortunately it appears that this is exactly what has been happening.
Good work Vanguard. Bad work City.
“Those areas getting well water should pay a lower rate for a lower quality product.”
Or pay extra. Remember Michael’s earlier crisis that the river water is filthy–does a new crisis mean that the old, conflicting ones are no longer operative?
It would be helpful to see a map showing which areas will get river water and which will get well water.
Does anyone know how we’ll get the pesticides out of the river water?
“I will no longer need to buy good-tasting water if this project is implemented.” This has been a refrain that I have heard when precinct canvassing. I remind them that this project is not surface water brought direct out of the mountains by conduit like that delivered to San Francisco and Roseville. It is Sacramento River water mixed with our chlorinated groundwater( the % of the mixture and chlorination content are just another piece of information that is not given to the Measure I voters). I will bet you dollars to donuts that if you are buying, filtering your drinking water now, you will continue to do so when you taste the stuff coming out of your tap.
Super Sleuth Bob Dunning is reporting old news and implying he just uncovered this dastardly scandal. I was the original author of the letter two years ago to the City that questioned the fairness of the planned mixing of surface and well waters during the summer. At that time I was only concerned about unfairly getting a high proportion of intermediate aquifer well water for extended periods during the summer months. In fact, the City has since finalized their distribution system plans and my concerns have been completely alleviated.
Firstly, the final decision was made to completely eliminate the use of intermediate aquifer water and rely solely on deep well water as backup during the summer months. The water quality of the deep water wells is unquestionably superior to the intermediate aquifer in all respects – lower nitrates, lower selenium, lower hexavalent chromium, lower hardness, and lower total salinity. It is, in fact, very good quality water and I would be perfectly happy to get deep well water year round if I thought that it could be accomplished in a sustainable manner. I don’t think there is a qualified water quality expert in town who would disagree and I doubt any Davis resident would even notice any taste or other differences between deep well water and river water when it starts to flow through our pipes when the change occurred. Unfortunately, however, as every reputable hydrogeology expert has told us, the deep aquifer is a finite resource and providing 100% of the City’s water needs 100% of the time would result in the eventual depletion and/or contamination over time. So we have to go to the river for the surface water or risk leaving Davis high and dry in some decades to come.
Secondly, the City has announced their new main distribution system for carrying treated surface water throughout the town throughout the City. It is well designed with new or enlarged mains carrying the surface water to all parts of the City including west Davis, east Davis, south Davis, and the central part of the city.
Will some residents get more deep well water than surface water during some times of the days during a few summer months…of course they will. It is a physical impossibility otherwise short of putting in massive new mixing tanks strewn throughout the City. There is no way to avoid this. But the point is that the well water Davis residents will get intermittently during the summer will be very high quality and they will not notice any difference in taste, effects on plants, or hardness forming on their faucet outlets. And they can drink it without fear of accumulation of unknown toxins which cannot be said now with the current use of intermediate aquifer water.
In summary, as long as the City gets rid of the lousy intermediate aquifer water and fairly distributes the surface water to all quarters of the City, every resident in town will get their fair share of surface water and there will be no intermediate aquifer water going to anyone.
However, once again Bob Dunning raises an issue that has been worked to death years ago and tried to turn it into a lead story which he attributes to his super sleuthing abilities. This is a perfect example of why Bob Dunning is still a small town newspaper columnist and not an up and coming reporter or a science writer. Bob should stick to his bread and butter tirades – off color jokes about the City Council and Zip Cars or using his bully pulpit to berate the NRC for daring to restrict his beloved plastic bags and his god-given right to use his foul smelling wood burning fireplace any damn time he chooses.
You all seem willing to give up on the only viable project that we have available because it is not ‘perfect’ from the start. Is that how you run your lives in general, sitting on your hands while waiting for the perfect solution to every problem? How do you accomplish anything? While there is nothing wrong with striving to improve every thing that we do, the idea that it has to be perfect in design before we do anything is a recipe for accomplishing nothing.
Now I know that ‘doing nothing’ is exactly what the no on everything crowd wants, but that should not be the goal of a rational, open, fact based decision making process. The WAC determined that the project with Woodland was the best project for us at this time (and in the future). We should continue to ‘perfect’ the project (and the rates for that matter) as we move forward, but first we have to move forward, and the only way we can do that is by approving Measure I.
I was under the impression that there was a $44 million figure built into the estimated cost of an conjunctive use system for the cost of plumbing to equitably distribute commingled water to all who pay for it. If this is not the case the City’s estimated project cost needs to be adjusted up accordingly and their 218 estimate is lowballed. Sounds to me like we are going to need a few more mixing tanks. At how many million dollars each?
What is this we are now hearing about straight river water being corrosive to coper plumbing? Does this mean that those” lucky” neighborhoods receiving unmixed river water are going to be looking at a $10,000 bill, in a few years, to jackhammer out their concrete slab foundations, (where the copper supply pipes reside), in order to replace piping corroded out by corrosive river water?
So the water banking option in Davis is unstudied, the distribution system for equitable distribution of commingled product water is not yet firmed up or costed into the project, and the corrosiveness of river water has not been disclosed by the city to voters.
It scares the hell out of me to think about how many totally uninformed voters will be voting between now and March 5th. This project needs much more study and the public needs much more information before voters can make an informed decision. There has to be a better way!
Roger B. “[i]This project needs much more study and the public needs much more information before voters can make an informed decision.[/i]”
How many more decades do you think we will need to study the problem to your satisfaction Roger?
It is time to move forward, not backwards.
“It is time to move forward, not backwards. “
mark, it just seems to me that ignoring people’s concerns is not going to convince them to vote for the project.
roger bockrath said . . .
[i]”I was under the impression that there was a $44 million figure built into the estimated cost of an conjunctive use system for the cost of plumbing to equitably distribute commingled water to all who pay for it. If this is not the case the City’s estimated project cost needs to be adjusted up accordingly and their 218 estimate is lowballed. Sounds to me like we are going to need a few more mixing tanks. At how many million dollars each?”[/i]
Roger, the $44 million was identified by the Kennedy Jenks / Brown and Caldwell study as being needed over and above the $14.66 million that is included in the surface water project for “Local Davis Costs” which are for the mixing that this article discusses.
Staff was able to reduce the $44 million to $37 million, but the aggregate total is now $51.66 million over the next six years.
I don’t think we need to study the problem anymore. I just think we need a full disclosure of honest facts. Bob Dunning gets to punch holes into the basis for support because the city and those promoting the surface water project are taking a posture that they should control the release of information to protect the political outcomes they desire. That is in effect a dishonest approach.
People make assumptions based on the information provided by the authoritative source. If those assumptions are later proven incorrect by disclosures from another party, then there is an erosion of trust for the authoritative source.
There have been quite a few people – myself included – making a case for supporting Measure I based on the assumption that we would all be getting high quality river water… or that the water from the river and deep wells would at least be blended to be much higher quality than what is produced by our wells alone.
At this point I do not trust the assertion from alanpryor [b][i]The water quality of the deep water wells is unquestionably superior to the intermediate aquifer in all respects – lower nitrates, lower selenium, lower hexavalent chromium, lower hardness, and lower total salinity. [/i][/b]
I want to see a water quality study for all wells that would remain in service for the new system, and which neighborhoods would get well water, and when they will get well water. We need a full and honest disclosure of facts.
“Bob Dunning gets to punch holes into the basis for support because the city and those promoting the surface water project are taking a posture that they should control the release of information to protect the political outcomes they desire. That is in effect a dishonest approach.”
it’s worse than that. dunning gets to punch holes in this because the city and the campaign have failed politics 101. you may hate clinton, but his 1992 campaign was the perfect campaign in terms of immediate and strong responses to attacks. the city takes ten days to respond and where the hell is the yes on I campaign? Pumping their endorsements and their 30k feet campaign.
Of the 30 or so people at the South Davis fire station project info meeting last night, I believe that there were just about the same number of reasons for people being there. That was their personal stake in the project, what was it going to cost them and what sacrifices they may have to make.
But everyone, I believe, had raised eyebrows and groans when Herb guaranteed one gentleman that there would not be any cost over runs in the project. After the laughter died down the meeting continued.
roger bockrath
“This project needs much more study and the public needs much more information before voters can make an informed decision. There has to be a better way!
roger, do you really expect the public to understand the details of laminar flows of multiple water streams within a water pipe? Do you think anyone will care about that level of detail? How many voters will fall asleep if we make attending a meeting on that subject mandatory in order to be able to cast your vote, or stay connected to the water system?
Regarding ASR (Aquifer Storage and Recharge), we have more than enough on our plates right now dealing with the basics. ASR will help us in 5-6 years once the water plant is up and running and we are able to see how much conservation we have actually achieved. That is more than enough time to gather the details about how ASR can help the system be more efficient and effective. The [u]only[/u] way that ASR is going to have a positive fiscal impact on the water system costs is if it allows us to not use the Conaway Ranch water and then sell that water on the open market. The graphic below shows the “holistic” view of the Davis water system. If you would like to talk about it lets get together over a cup of coffee.
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/MW-DavisWaterSystemGraphic-withreuseandASR_zps069807e4.jpg[/IMG]
Alan Pryor:
“Super Sleuth Bob Dunning”
“off color jokes about the City Council and Zip Cars or using his bully pulpit to berate the NRC for daring to restrict his beloved plastic bags and his god-given right to use his foul smelling wood burning fireplace any damn time he chooses.”
Personally, I trust Bob Dunning a lot more than I trust anything coming out of your mouth.
Skip Harrison said . . .
[i]”Of the 30 or so people at the South Davis fire station project info meeting last night, I believe that there were just about the same number of reasons for people being there. That was their personal stake in the project, what was it going to cost them and what sacrifices they may have to make.
But everyone, I believe, had raised eyebrows and groans when Herb guaranteed one gentleman that there would not be any cost over runs in the project. After the laughter died down the meeting continued. “[/i]
Agreed Skip. It was great to meet you last night. It was particularly interesting to look at two of the attendees in tandem.
The first of those was an elderly couple, she having to use a walker, who noted that they have had to reduce their spending and what they have observed is that they as they have continued to reduce their consumption their bill stays the same because the bi-monthly fixed fee is $23.00 and their bi-monthly use is only about $7.50 (5 ccf times $1.50). The $23.00 never changes and even if they save another ccf all they save is a $1.50. As you pointed out, the are paying for a huge amount of capacity that they are never using . . . and probably couldn’t use even if they tried.
The second was an engineer who was wailing and gnashing his teeth because all his front yard grass and shrubbery, plus his back yard grass and pool were causing him to use “way more than the city-wide average amount of water in the summer.” He wanted to have a rate structure where everyone else in the city paid for the consequences of his discretionary decision to have all that grass, shrubbery and pool. He even went on to say that as an engineer he “knows that you can set up any rate structure any way you want.” He at least had the decency to not openly say, “and I want you to change the rate structure so that I don’t have to take responsibility for my discretionary water consuming decisions.” When I asked him if all that grass and shrubbery and pool made the market value of his home higher, his response was, “Yes, but that is inconsequential.”
It was an interesting dynamic to observe. CBFR will clearly solve the problem (Edgar would call it a loophole) that the elderly couple face. The engineer clearly didn’t want them to have that solution. Not much equity in that interchange.
BTW, if you want the document that explains how CBFR solves the meter size problem you asked about, send me an e-mail at mattwill@pacbell.net
Mark West wrote:
> Throughout this entire process we have been
> discussing a “conjunctive use” water system.
When I read Mark use the word “we”it got me wondering if he is related to Bruce West and/or works with West Yost (that seems to be involved with every Davis water project)?
http://www.westyost.com/leadership
I love it when anonymous people try to disparage people who post under their own names. A real profile in courage.
[quote]It scares the hell out of me to think about how many totally uninformed voters will be voting between now and March 5th.[/quote I agree with Roger, and I believe he is one of those uninformed/ignorant/clueless voters…. but it is what it is.
I suspect many voters will wonder where their “hot water” comes from [I do not lie, the City engineers were asked this by a junior @ UCD in the mid-70’s]
[quote]What is this we are now hearing about straight river water being corrosive to coper plumbing?[/quote]Forgetting the spelling error (because I’m not perfect, either), look at how many tens/hundreds of thousands Sacramento River water there are… have you seen any indications of widespread failures of copper pipe, due to water quality (I can point to many due to corrosive SOIL conditions)?
[quote]equitably distribute commingled water to all who pay for it. [/quote]Another (at least) clueless comment. Equitably? What do you mean? since the second municipal well was drilled, nearly 100 years ago, if anyone thinks they get EXACTLY (equitably?) the same water they are ignorant/fools/liars. Get a clue!
[quote]So the water banking option in Davis is unstudied[/quote]This shows a complete lack of knowledge about aquifers. I suggest at least an academic quarter of study, but I feel no need to provide it to folks who wouldn’t trust “experts” in any event, so I will not waste my efforts.
[quote]I was under the impression that there was a $44 million figure built into the estimated cost of an conjunctive use system for the cost of plumbing to equitably distribute commingled water to all who pay for it.[/quote]Don’t know who gave that impression, but never was anticipated… hell, we haven’t had it in the entire life of the City! Duh! BTW, that issue would be much worse with a West Sacramento supply option (unless you live in South Davis).
Voters may be ill/un informed, they may have their special agenda(s), they may be idiots, but they have the right (and, in my opinion, the obligation) to vote on Measure I. I will not listen to anyone who becries the outcome of the vote, unless they voted.
Apologies to all… don’t fully understand the “format thing” in posting…
Matt, I think I have a handle on the meter size issue that I brought up last night. In the overall scheme of things my 1″ meter (that I don’t need and didn’t ask for) compared to a 3/4 ” meter is minuscule. I just like to complain.
GI: “mark, it just seems to me that ignoring people’s concerns is not going to convince them to vote for the project.”
I don’t ignore their concerns. I just believe that the vast majority of these so called concerns have been addressed repeatedly over the past five years, and are being brought out again by the same people as before with the intent of misinforming the public. I want a fact based discussion/decision, not one on false claims, innuendo and bald faced lies.
hpierce: It was just a problem with the html tag, and sometimes it happens on its own. When I see it I correct it.
SOD: “When I read Mark use the word “we”it got me wondering if he is related to Bruce West and/or works with West Yost…?
I share a last name with Bruce, and I have even met him once or twice, but that is the only aspect of your attempted smear that can be said to be true.
With the exception of time off for good behavior while I was in school, I am a life long resident of Davis with no connection whatsoever to any company involved with the surface water project. I advocate making decisions based on facts and respectful discussion (between people using their real names), not false statements, personal attacks and innuendo. I also believe that it is important that we not be afraid of making a decision when the time comes, as there are more problems that need our attention.
Clearly you think otherwise.
“But everyone, I believe, had raised eyebrows and groans when Herb guaranteed one gentleman that there would not be any cost over runs in the project. After the laughter died down the meeting continued.”
….another argument for the superiority of the West Sac option over the proposed Woodland-Davis project. It is just common sense(a commodity increasingly becoming an endangered species in the frantic pro-project ever-changing narrative) that a project that involves building a conduit pipe and auxillary pumping would have significantly less likelihood of cost-overruns than the building of the much more complex Woodland-Davis water purification/delivery system.
West Sacramento agreed if the City of Davis wanted a permanent right, it would have to pay West Sacramento: 1) the full cost for accessing plant capacity; 2) pay monthly for Davis’ share of the operational cost, including a set aside for the future replacement of the water treatment plant; 3) contribute towards the cost of increasing the intake structure at some point in the future; 4) the cost for Davis to purchase permanent capacity of $19.4 million for 12mgd. In effect, Davis would have had to promise to pay for any increase in capacity of the water treatment plant and intake that West Sacramento deemed necessary to accommodate its own growth. At that point, it was clear any cost savings of going with the West Sacramento option was nullified.
The West Sacramento option was thoroughly and exhaustively examined by the Water Advisory Committee. The Committee looked at all the numbers, and determined there was minimal, if any cost savings with the West Sacramento option. And the West Sacramento alternative had distinct disadvantages, such as 1) Davis would be a customer and not a partner, subject to the decisions of West Sacramento without any say in the matter, including the inability to negotiate rate impacts and increases; 2) the West Sacramento uses chlorine-based water purification leaving highly undesirable byproducts in the water 3) there are a great number of regulatory and environmental hurdles to overcome with the West Sac option, including petitioning to change the authorized points of diversion, preparation of a supplemental EIR, analyzing the changes in environmental effects that would result from related changes in pipeline alignments through the Yolo Wildlife refuge, and dealing with probable legal challenges that would be filed, to name a few.
And speaking of “ever-changing narratives”, the No on I folks have, at various times, criticized the water intake location, the location of pipes from the intake to the treatment plant, the treatment plant location, and the location of the pipes to Davis. They have said the project was “in the bag” for decades, but has also been “rushed”. They have said it punishes low water users and high water users, and everyone in between. They have said we don’t need surface water at all, that we do need it, but not for a long time, and that we do need it but we should get it elsewhere. They have said Woodland is not a good partner, but that we should pursue a “regional project” that includes Woodland. They say that we cannot trust water experts, the Water Advisory Committee, city staff, project engineers, or our elected leaders; but that we should somehow trust them to come up with a perfect plan.
They have said, will continue to say, absolutely anything.
Will – I agree that “No” folks have said any and everything. All this means to me is that there is no “No on I” movement but merely a collection of “No’s on I” that make common cause on an overarching issue (NO!) but disagree on many (most) of the particulars. This is what makes the whole thing frustrating to me. There is no coherent “side” to discuss this issue with but merely a disparate group of individuals who pick apart individual aspects of the project and thereby sow confusion about the overall workability of the project.
Adam Smith made the the following comment on Sunday:
[quote]If Initiative I fails, it will be proof positive that complicated subjects that take time and effort to understand, should not be submitted to voters, even in city like Davis. [/quote]
I am not sure if I would go as far as he does but I agree with the sentiment. The “No’s on I” have taken advantage of the complexity and uncertainties inherent in this project to insert doubt about narrow elements divorced from the context of the broader need. And when people on this blog have patiently responded to each and every issue raised, some of this group have resorted to innuendo and suggestions of impropriety and, yes, even lies to continue the confusion. And then when people are, rightly, confused they sit back and say: “See how complicated this monstrosity is? Who can understand it??!! We need more time.” (But they are not even of one mind in this, for others would merely kill the best and let it rot).
Their irresponsibility is matched only by their “hubris of certainty” about the essential rightness of their largely evidence-free allegations. They are not one but a many-headed hydra that has been created by the inability of this community to call them out on their bad behavior–a behavior that can only be described as driven by a messiah complex in which they fancy themselves the ultimate saviors of our town.
And… yes.. I have violated some of my own principles in writing the foregoing in a disparaging way. I regret that and will try not to let it happen again. Even my frustration does not justify it but it is done.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”….another argument for the superiority of the West Sac option over the proposed Woodland-Davis project. It is just common sense(a commodity increasingly becoming an endangered species in the frantic pro-project ever-changing narrative) that a project that involves building a conduit pipe and auxillary pumping would have significantly less likelihood of cost-overruns than the building of the much more complex Woodland-Davis water purification/delivery system.”[/i]
Another uninformed comment laid out for political value only. You are smarter than that d2. You know that the central premise of DBO is that if there are problems during the [b]B[/b]uilding portion of the project, then the contractor goes back to the [b]D[/b]esigner for remedies. Since the [b]D[/b]esigner is the same company that is doing the [b]B[/b]uilding, the DBO firm is on the hook for any inadequacies in its own [b]D[/b]esign. The inevitable cost-overruns (and I wholeheartedly agree that there will be some) are the fiscal responsibility of the [b]DBO[/b] firm. The two cities and the JPA will be insulated from fiscal risk created by any design or build failings.
For those who don’t know, the alternative to DBO is “design – bid – build” where the cities and JPA hire a firm to do the design. Then the cities and JPA hire a firm to build the plant according to the design specifications. Then the cities and JPA hire a firm to operate the built plant.
If the plant building firm runs into problems with the design, they go back to their contractual partner in order to get a change order to the project. Who is their contractual partner? The cities and the JPA are. Therefore the cities and JPA are on the hook for the cost-overuns created by the change orders. The cities and JPA can attempt to go after the design firm under the terms of the contract between the cities and JPA and the design firm, but that is rarely fruitful.
Bottom-line, the “design – bid – build” method of procurement creates lots of risk for the cities and the JPA. The DBO method of procurement transfers that risk to the DBO firm.
davisite2 knows and understands that. He’s just purposely being obtuse in order to achieve a political effect.
“the question of properly blending water is also a problem that absolutely has to be addressed for political purposes.”
Ouch. Violated a rule I was told years ago, ‘never state in a government memo that you are doing something for political reasons’.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”….another argument for the superiority of the West Sac option over the proposed Woodland-Davis project.”[/i]
d2, does your statement square with the facts? Here are the compiled final costs of West Sac vs. Woodland that were presented to the WAC.
[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
DWWSP Option A, WAC Alternative 4b: 30 mgd DWWSP Project w/ozone; Woodland: 18 mgd, Davis: 12 mgd
$_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
Note: the total amount of Risk Contingency in the West Sac total is $12,879,248. The total amount of Risk Contingency in the Woodland/Davis total is $16,525,333.
In addition to those capital cost numbers (which fall into the fixed cost category), the annual variable costs as presented to the WAC on October 18th by Carollo Engineers and Bartle Wells (totaled over the 2012 through 2021 period) were $44,558,000 for the West Sac option and $46,746,000. At that time I believe the Woodland/Davis split was still 54/46. If it was the $46,746,000 would come down to $41,993,000.
So the fixed costs of the two most recent “deals” are virtually identical . . . as are the variable costs.
The question that Joe Friday is left with is, “Where is the superiority?”
Matt – here is a challenge with “design – bid – build”. First though, as you know in project management there is budget, schedule, scope and quality. Those are the four primary attributes for what the project delivers.
There is the issue of “control and accountability”.
In the DBB approach, Davis is giving up control and accountability over budget (basically delegating the risk for budget overruns to the contractor). Since budget overruns are always caused by the occurrence of unanticipated factors, a problem and change management sub-process is launched when they occur. If the contractor is managing this sub-process (which in the DBB approach it would be), then it will also launch the cost-control sub-process.
This is where we start to introduce scope and quality risks. Because cost-managers will compel designers and builders to find ways to reduce over-all costs to make up the difference, and scope and quality are usually the trade-off factors, scope and quality will suffer.
So, I would worry that corners will be cut and quality will suffer if the contractor is stuck with material cost overruns.
justsaying wrote at 10:30 am today: “it’s worse than that. dunning gets to punch holes in this because the city and the campaign have failed politics 101. you may hate clinton, but his 1992 campaign was the perfect campaign in terms of immediate and strong responses to attacks. the city takes ten days to respond and where the hell is the yes on I campaign? Pumping their endorsements and their 30k feet campaign.”
JustSaying: I look at all of this with an eye towards the facts and the law. I think the Yes on I has run a textbook campaign that would easily win — if the Campaign Staff had a “good client,” meaning if the surface water project and its rates were reasonable, needed, sort-a-kinda affordable, and passed the red face test with the public.
Clinton Parish would not have won if he had had the best campaign staff in the world. The candidate was flawed.
Same here, sorry to say: the project and the rates are flawed. All the No on I team has to do is get the word out; time will tell if we were able to get the message out fast enough to finish the job that the flawed project and rates started for us.
I have met the Yes on I team several times at the Saturday Farmers Market, and I am certain they are doing the best possible campaign, but hindered by a seriously flawed “candidate.” It’s not the Campaign Team’s fault that the CC handed them a flawed candidate.
If No on I wins, we are all brilliant, of course! If not, we are the unorganized, unwashed masses trying to futily challenge authority, led by dunces.
Pam and I took that chance with the 2011 Referendum, and we have done it again here. Heros, or dunces. Working hard, and hoping for the best!
Interesting that the main point of concern now seems to be the flawed rate system. Guess we were able to tie those clanky tin cans to the tail of the JPA pig wearing lipstick? We did it, and the public gets it, in spite of 5 votes on the CC trying to strip away the rates and bury them in a small font, boring, throw-away-junk mail appearing Prop 218 notice.
BTW, please remember to file with the City Clerk your protest ballot. We are mailing out ballots to most households in the city, and publishing a clip-out ballot in the Davis Enterprise that all of you can cut and mail.
Whatever happens with Measure I on March 5, we are going to challenge the new rates system in every available forum.
I have asked the City Council to immediately cancel the Prop 218 Notice, due to the flaws. If they do not, and proceed with attempting a rate increase on March 19, we will stop them.
I’m looking on the City’s home page. I dont see a protest ballot the user can get with a simple click? Why dont they have one, since they chose to not mail a ballot, and the Prop 218 notice was buried at the back of an info-mercial booklet that the CIty mailed.
“justsaying wrote at 10:30 am today: ‘it’s worse than that….'”
Sorry, Michael, it wasn’t me. At 10:30 a.m., I was hosting a “Yes on I!” rally at the Rec Hall at which 3,434 folks completed their ballots. After confirming the “yes” votes–11% originally were marked incorrectly–I was off to the Davis branch library to deposit them all.
Matt, Just a thought – if we have to buy land/RW for the Woodland project….could we put a bike path on top of it and have a safer bike route between Davis and Woodland?
The Brain (aka Mike Harrington)
[img]https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=brain&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSWAndR77i3vKjBhpECxCwjKcIGjIKMAgBEgr0B8gGpwbUB7MGGiDcpdJL-Dp8tpw7ZrNQaLfG-pjzSXW2c0b1GaAt23WsZgwLEI6u_1ggaAAwhQbArjXWqTpk&sa=X&ei=OromUdS6McG1iwLsxYD4Dw&ved=0CCgQwg4&biw=1243&bih=793[/img]
Just Saying: Book ’em, Dano, for conducting a campaign on state property!!!! LOL
I wrote:
> When I read Mark use the word “we” it got me
> wondering if he is related to Bruce West and/or
> works with West Yost…?
Then Mark wrote:
> I share a last name with Bruce, and I have even
> met him once or twice, but that is the only aspect
> of your attempted smear that can be said to be true.
I have no idea why you feel I was trying to “smear you?? I have never met Bruce and only know that he works on water projects in the Davis area. When you sounded like an insider I was just curious if you were related (and/or was working on the water project).
About five years ago I met a guy at a party that seemed to know a lot about Davis politics. I asked my friend (that went to Holmes Junior High with the guys wife) if he was related to a former Davis Mayor with the same last name. It was not any kind of “attempted smear”, I was just curious if he was related (it turns out he was)…
Michael Harrington:
“BTW, please remember to file with the City Clerk your protest ballot. We are mailing out ballots to most households in the city, and publishing a clip-out ballot in the Davis Enterprise that all of you can cut and mail.”
Excellent idea Michael. I commend you and your team for your all of your efforts on behalf of the No on I side. Unlike the city notice, please make sure that “218” water rates protest is easily noticable on the letter and the Enterprise clip-out ballot.
Will Arnold: You point out that the No on I message sometimes seems … confusing. That may be because none of us are paid staff or consultants, we don’t have Craig Reynolds and 2/3rds of the staff of Senator Wolk’s office keeping us on message, and different volunteers write different things in the middle of the night before they haul off and hit SEND to the Davis Enterprise, Davis Vanguard, and Mad Magazine. Everyone has their own ideas as to why this JPA pig with lipstick and bad rates tied it its tail should be voted DOWN. So that’s why you hear different things at various times. All, however, “Bad News” for Measure I and those clunky tin can rates.
Looking forward to March 6th! Whatever happens, we will be done with this piece of the struggle for affordable and fair rates.
Rusty49: please meet us at City Hall when we come down to request the City pay us back for what we are spending on getting those Prop 218 Protest Ballots out. We are doing the City’s job for it.
Last time, in the Summer of 2011, Mayor Joe commendably asked the Clerk’s office to mail those protest ballots out to all property owners. Since I was not involved at that time, and really had no idea what a Prop 218 or a protest was, the City received about 5,600 ballots “from the wild,” meaning there was no campaign to round them up and get them in to the Clerk.
The CC this time is manipulating the system on those new rates:
1. Stripped them from Measure I, so the public is being asked to vote with little information as to the rates or true cost of the project;
2. Buried the Prop 218 Notice in the back of an info-mercial booklet that many would probably throw away without knowing about that small paragraph with small font type.
3. Refused to mail any protest ballots to any properties.
BTW, the Prop 218 Rate Notice was based on false data, and in and of itself is actionable in court. We will add this to the pending case, if necessary.
[url]www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPFSNu_QNs[/url]
Frankly said . . .
[i]”Matt – here is a challenge with “design – bid – build”. First though, as you know in project management there is budget, schedule, scope and quality. Those are the four primary attributes for what the project delivers.
There is the issue of “control and accountability”.
In the DBB approach, Davis is giving up control and accountability over budget (basically delegating the risk for budget overruns to the contractor). Since budget overruns are always caused by the occurrence of unanticipated factors, a problem and change management sub-process is launched when they occur. If the contractor is managing this sub-process (which in the DBB approach it would be), then it will also launch the cost-control sub-process.
This is where we start to introduce scope and quality risks. Because cost-managers will compel designers and builders to find ways to reduce over-all costs to make up the difference, and scope and quality are usually the trade-off factors, scope and quality will suffer.
So, I would worry that corners will be cut and quality will suffer if the contractor is stuck with material cost overruns.”[/i]
I hear you Frankly. Having negotiated and delivered quite a few outsourcing contracts in Healthcare Information Technology, the key to a successful DBO contractual relationship and operational achievement will be the “scope of work” defined in the specifications document and the contract. In my capacity as a WAC member I contacted the City of Seattle employee who manages their two DBO water treatment facilities, Alex Chen. Alex was a font of both experience and wisdom. First he commended us on hiring Jerry Gilbert to design the “scope of work” documentation and expectations. Alex (who went to UC Davis and knows Davis well) said that his experience with Jerry, who was intimately involved in both the Seattle plants, has been that Jerry is superb at anticipating the kinds of “adjustments” that are likely to happen in a DBO project like ours and therefore has included clear guidelines for resolving those adjustments without compromising the scope and quality of the project.
Alex said he would be happy to talk to anyone about Seattle’s experience with DBO. I reported the content of my telephone call with Alex to the WAC. Some members were glad to have the information. Other members wondered why staff hadn’t called Alex sooner. You can’t please all the people all the time.
Which is the genius and who is insane or have they become the same?
[i]I reported the content of my telephone call with Alex to the WAC. Some members were glad to have the information. Other members wondered why staff hadn’t called Alex sooner. You can’t please all the people all the time. [/i]
Matt – Good work. I hope the city stays in contact with Alex.
Yes, I agree with that last statement.
I was reading about the Chinese government kicking farmers off their little plots of land so that developers can build high-rise apartments. There is the extreme for top-down command and control of the project.
On the other end is Davis-style project governance… one where every citizen believes he/she is a critical stakeholder and deserves to see the thing done the way they want it done, and management of the effort is a bit loosey goosey and often does their work from the back of the bus.
At times I very much appreciate the Chinese approach. It is direct and gets things done. However, it tramples on individuals for the benefit of the collective. It fails to leverage the value-added synergy of democratic decision-processes… however messy it can be.
Somewhere in the middle of the Chinese and Davis approach is the optimum design of government-facilitated project governance.
Matt,
Thanks for the offer to sit down over a cup of coffee to help me educate myself on the issues.I appreciate your level headed, fact oriented presentations. They have served me well in answering some of my many concerns regards this project. I gave up coffee when I hit 50, but we could possibly have a beer. Important to remember that this is a decision making process, not a battle.
I was further informed by your discussion of the DesignBuildOpoerate vs. DesignBidBuild options. That was the first mention of DesignBidBuild I have encountered. I can certainly see the disadvantage of Davis ratepayers getting stuck with cost overruns that could possibly be avoided with the DBO option.
But what about taking bids from companies who would design and build, similar to the way high end houses are built. This would put the responsibility for design flaws squarely on the shoulders of the Design/Builder.
I firmly believe that placing the operation of my water in the hands of a company whose primary concern is profit to be unwise. It provides said company with incentive to cut corners (such as was done by one of the three original bidders, with their waste water plant back east).
I don’t buy to argument that some how city/JPA employees are not capable of running a water treatment plant, and that only the people who designed and built the plant can do a proper job. I believe that providing infrastructure and running that infrastructure is what local governments are for. I have read too many stories about DBOperators being kicked out after doing a faulty job of providing services to be convinced that DBO is a better option than DBwithNot-for-Profit operation. Was this option ever discussed by the WAC?
[quote]I don’t buy to argument that some how city/JPA employees are not capable of running a water treatment plant, and that only the people who designed and built the plant can do a proper job.[/quote]There are potential advantages (reductions in risk) to DBO… intially, during the “shakedown” phase of initial operation (3-5 years), the risk of dealing with plant problems remain the responsibility of the design/builder. After that, JPA can make an informed choice to continue in that mode, or have public employees take over maintenance and operation.
roger bockrath said . . .
“But what about taking bids from companies who would design and build, similar to the way high end houses are built. This would put the responsibility for design flaws squarely on the shoulders of the Design/Builder.
I firmly believe that placing the operation of my water in the hands of a company whose primary concern is profit to be unwise. It provides said company with incentive to cut corners (such as was done by one of the three original bidders, with their waste water plant back east).”
roger, I’d love to talk over a beer. Send me an e-mail at mattwill@pacbell.net and lets schedule it.
The question you ask in your first paragraph is a superb one. It is one I asked myself in my journey as a WAC member and Michael Bartolic and I mutually batted that question around quite a bit over the past 12 months. The simple answer is that you can do exactly that. In fact the City of Seattle has two DBO built plants with the same design as the WDCWA plant. As noted in one of my prior comments above, I was able to contact Alex Chen the City of Seattle employee who manages their two DBO water treatment facilities.. In addition to all the information he provided me on DBO scope and quality, he also shared with me that the City of Seattle had seriously considered at one time the possibility of converting the plant from DBO operation to city employee operation.
They completed a detailed analysis of what the costs currently were from their DBO operator vs the costs that public operation would be. What they found was that the two costs were within a fraction of 1% of each other. My response to him when he told me that was, [i]”Well that should have made your decision easy. Ties go to the public operator.” [/i]
He said in response (and I paraphrase from memory), [i]”No, that wasn’t the case. The reason is that even though the money was equivalent there was one huge difference that made our decision to continue with the DBO operator easy. Specifically, they are a crucial and valuable part of the continuing warranty of the Design Build work. For no additional dollars we have the operator ferreting out problems that are challenging the most efficient operation of the plant. When they identify any possible problems they have full access and [u]free[/u] access to the Design and Build resources within their own company. If Seattle took over the operation then the access to those problem solving resources would no longer be either full or free. We would find ourselves in the situation of any normal arms length product warranty situation, where the two parties spend time and money determining whether the problem is covered by the warranty or not. In the DBO model there is no incentive to waste time and money acting out the “blame dance” because both “pockets” from which the money and resources needed to fix the problem are within the same organization.” [/i]
The way that the WDCWA bid specification documents are written (as I understand it), the contract term for the operations coincides with the warranty period of the design and build . . . 15 years. Thanks to Brett Lee, the default for what happens after 15 years is not continued private operation, but rather a conversion to public operation. I think Alex Chen would call that “having our cake (the warranty) and eating it too (the ability to convert after the end of the warranty period).
roger bockrath said . . .
“I don’t buy to argument that some how city/JPA employees are not capable of running a water treatment plant, and that only the people who designed and built the plant can do a proper job. I believe that providing infrastructure and running that infrastructure is what local governments are for. I have read too many stories about DBOperators being kicked out after doing a faulty job of providing services to be convinced that DBO is a better option than DBwithNot-for-Profit operation. Was this option ever discussed by the WAC?”
Yes, it was discussed at quite some length. My report about Alex Chen and the City of Seattle was part of that discussion. In the end the WAC voted to support the DBO option with the Brett Lee provision as the best alternative.