This story will attempt not necessarily to fill in that detail, as we have presented greater detail in a number of other locations. The main goal here is to raise questions that will need to be more definitively answered by the city.
“Council members are acutely aware of the costs of this project. We are also acutely aware of the importance of securing a reliable water supply as our wells are depleted, and meeting state requirements to reduce environmental impacts from our wastewater discharges.”
This is the crux of the matter that needs more definitive answers. I have watched these meetings on water since January 2007 and my overriding sense is that with the exception of Councilmember Sue Greenwald and at times Councilmember Lamar Heystek, there are few tough and probing questions from council on these points.
The central argument that proponents have put forth is as follows:
The problem that Davis faces is that the water discharged by the city does not meet current standards for water quality. This is primarily a water supply issue because although the water meets drinking standards as it enters into one’s tap, it does not meet outflow standards.
The tough question that Councilmember like Don Saylor never seem to press for is whether the only solution is to go forth with a water supply plan immediately.
But the statement does something else–it rhetorically acknowledges that there will be costs to this project without actually discussing what those costs will be and the fact that the costs will be currently accrued with a wastewater treatment facility–a project that everyone agrees needs to happen now.
Estimates for this cost to the ratepayer begin with a doubling of the cost of water on a monthly basis to an increase of $100 to $200 depending largely on estimates for the cost of the project. These costs have gone up considerably over the course of this water discussion.
[For a good overview of the history please see my article from January 2007 where I trace the debate over water projects back to the beginning of this process. ]
There has been little discussion or acknowledgment about who in the public can afford it. And while the cost of delaying the water supply project may increase the overall cost of the project, it may also decrease the hit on the individual ratepayer in terms of their monthly bill. People on fixed incomes will be hurt most by these rate hikes.
Some have suggested that the taste of water alone necessitates this change. In fact, one can get better tasting water for much cheaper. For instance, one can get a gallon of water at a grocery story for less than forty cents a gallon. Even if one gets close to three gallons a day that way, a large amount of drinking water, the cost per month would be less than the cost of this project. Other filtration systems are even less in cost. For instance, I use a Brita filter which runs me less than $10 per month, much less than a rate hike in water.
Mayor Pro Tem Saylor continues:
“The NWRI panel recommended that Davis pursue a balanced water portfolio combining surface water, ground water, conservation and reuse strategies. The unanimous findings of the panel are that no other alternative exists that would support these objectives as effectively, economically or environmentally as the proposed surface water project.”
This runs along with the findings that the city has had for quite some time. Unfortunately it appears that Councilmember Sue Greenwald has some information that contradicts these findings. It would be helpful if the city council were willing to bring in those purported experts to give them a different view and a different consideration. However, instead of listening to what Councilmember Greenwald had to say and allowing her to continue to ask questions, she was inappropriately cut off. One is forced to ask what the council majority is afraid of by indulging the questions of Councilmember Greenwald or even more responsibly by allowing her experts to come forward. They would then have fuller information and could make an even better decision.
“All five council members have stated that surface water will be needed at some time. The panel report and presentation on July 29 concluded that delay in pursuing this project would result in significant cost increases, loss of winter water, loss of water rights and other serious negative consequences.”
The first sentence is of course true. And it may be that the rest follows from it. But again, that is in dispute.
The staff report from the July 29, 2008 meeting read:
“The Panel concluded that the most serious consequence from postponing the project is the probability of losing the pending appropriative right to withdraw up to 46,100 acre-feet of water per year from the Sacramento River.”
They further argued:
“The Panel concluded that postponement of the project to a later date would likely result in the loss of upstream water currently available for purchase to supplement the amount of water needed during the summer months.”
This is true to some degree but it also somewhat misleading. At previous water workshops it became clear that winter water would almost always be available in some degree. However, during the summer months it becomes more problematic. The city would be allowed to extract water depending on the current water flow of the Sacramento River. As summer goes on, the amount of water to be extracted from the river will invariably go down. During dry years, the Sacramento River may not have enough water for extract at all. That would force the city to once again rely almost completely on ground water for its summer water supply–when water needs will be invariably higher.
In other words, when we need water the most, the water supply will be most problematic. And if that happens, will we even after these huge capital project expenditures, still remain out of compliance with discharge standards. These are serious questions that need to be asked and answered somehow.
If global warming reduces the amount of rainfall or even snowpack in the Sierras, the amount of runoff may be reduced into the Sacramento River. At the very least the water supply may fluctuate more widely meaning some years we have plenty of water and other years we do not.
That does not take into account the idea of holding our place in line. In theory, at present, the experts are correct about the line. But supposing reduced water in the future, where will that leave us and this line? Will communities such as Davis get nosed out by increasing needs by say Los Angeles in a future where there is less water? Climate change makes this a much more uncertain situation.
Have these tough questions been asked by the council sufficiently? Or are we potentially throwing a large amount of money down the drain for a solution that may not be here in the future?
Of course, the letter to the editor is not just about water, but about the council discussion as well. Councilmember Saylor refers the public to the streaming video and comments on council ground rules.
“The July 29 council discussion can be viewed on streaming video at the city of Davis Web site under ‘City Council’ video archives section (about three hours and 39 minutes into the meeting).
During that meeting, the mayor called a recess, acting under the provisions of the council ground rules. These ground rules govern your council’s proceedings and conduct. They can be found [here].”
I invite the public to once again view the Youtube video which contains the final three minutes of Councilmember Greenwald’s question-answer session with the water consultants, and then shows what transpired after the Mayor attempted to cut her off.
Unfortunately Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor delivers for the public very little detail on the water project that will severely increase the monthly cost of water to ratepayers. There are a number of questions that I would like to see addressed.
I have no problem with holding one’s place in line at this point. I would however like to see each of the councilmembers aggressively but respectfully grill the consultants much as Councilmember Greenwald has. If the answer is at the end of the day, that we must go forward, I want it to be because we have no other choice rather than because we did not look into all the alternatives because the experts told us this was the only choice.
One point that needs to be explored is whether these consultants have industry ties. That was one of my problems with the original group of consultants–they seemed to have a financial stake in the city going forward with the process. Too often, the ties between consultant and industry are blurry at best. I think the city council, if they wish to be thorough and responsible, should encourage Sue Greenwald to put her consultants and experts forward and see if their advise is different, and if it is different, try to determine why and whether that advise might not be a better alternative. What does the council have to lose?
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I think that the waters of this discussion have been thoroughly muddied by a failure to distinguish motivations for the projects.
I think that everyone would agree that we need a safe and reliable source of water for the next century. I also think we agree that our wastewater needs to continue to improve in quality. In isolation, the two projects are needed to support the current needs of Davis.
The divisive issue is growth (shocker…). An expansion of capacity would allow an expansion of Davis. There is a legitimate concern that some council members would welcome the projects and their expense as a way to welcome large-scale development which could be used to defray some of that cost.
The expensive projects create yet another “Liberal Litmus Test” where love for the environment has to be balanced against love of the poor. It goes something like this, “the way to reduce the financial impact on the poor is to allow large-scale development which would lower their costs” So do you love the environment or hate poor people?
Obvious solution is to do both projects together with their capacity balanced at our 2008 requirements only. Any new development has to buy water at $.40 a gallon and use the restrooms at Walmart in Dixon.
I think that the waters of this discussion have been thoroughly muddied by a failure to distinguish motivations for the projects.
I think that everyone would agree that we need a safe and reliable source of water for the next century. I also think we agree that our wastewater needs to continue to improve in quality. In isolation, the two projects are needed to support the current needs of Davis.
The divisive issue is growth (shocker…). An expansion of capacity would allow an expansion of Davis. There is a legitimate concern that some council members would welcome the projects and their expense as a way to welcome large-scale development which could be used to defray some of that cost.
The expensive projects create yet another “Liberal Litmus Test” where love for the environment has to be balanced against love of the poor. It goes something like this, “the way to reduce the financial impact on the poor is to allow large-scale development which would lower their costs” So do you love the environment or hate poor people?
Obvious solution is to do both projects together with their capacity balanced at our 2008 requirements only. Any new development has to buy water at $.40 a gallon and use the restrooms at Walmart in Dixon.
I think that the waters of this discussion have been thoroughly muddied by a failure to distinguish motivations for the projects.
I think that everyone would agree that we need a safe and reliable source of water for the next century. I also think we agree that our wastewater needs to continue to improve in quality. In isolation, the two projects are needed to support the current needs of Davis.
The divisive issue is growth (shocker…). An expansion of capacity would allow an expansion of Davis. There is a legitimate concern that some council members would welcome the projects and their expense as a way to welcome large-scale development which could be used to defray some of that cost.
The expensive projects create yet another “Liberal Litmus Test” where love for the environment has to be balanced against love of the poor. It goes something like this, “the way to reduce the financial impact on the poor is to allow large-scale development which would lower their costs” So do you love the environment or hate poor people?
Obvious solution is to do both projects together with their capacity balanced at our 2008 requirements only. Any new development has to buy water at $.40 a gallon and use the restrooms at Walmart in Dixon.
I think that the waters of this discussion have been thoroughly muddied by a failure to distinguish motivations for the projects.
I think that everyone would agree that we need a safe and reliable source of water for the next century. I also think we agree that our wastewater needs to continue to improve in quality. In isolation, the two projects are needed to support the current needs of Davis.
The divisive issue is growth (shocker…). An expansion of capacity would allow an expansion of Davis. There is a legitimate concern that some council members would welcome the projects and their expense as a way to welcome large-scale development which could be used to defray some of that cost.
The expensive projects create yet another “Liberal Litmus Test” where love for the environment has to be balanced against love of the poor. It goes something like this, “the way to reduce the financial impact on the poor is to allow large-scale development which would lower their costs” So do you love the environment or hate poor people?
Obvious solution is to do both projects together with their capacity balanced at our 2008 requirements only. Any new development has to buy water at $.40 a gallon and use the restrooms at Walmart in Dixon.
On one side stand the hired “consultant” whose career financial success is NOT compatible with “shooting down” projects of the politically powerful, Council members whose political patrons are these same politically and financially powerful interest groups and our city staff whose personal career challenges and professional status with its potential salary growth are tied to larger and more complex job descriptions. On the other side, stand the interests of the citizens of Davis.
On one side stand the hired “consultant” whose career financial success is NOT compatible with “shooting down” projects of the politically powerful, Council members whose political patrons are these same politically and financially powerful interest groups and our city staff whose personal career challenges and professional status with its potential salary growth are tied to larger and more complex job descriptions. On the other side, stand the interests of the citizens of Davis.
On one side stand the hired “consultant” whose career financial success is NOT compatible with “shooting down” projects of the politically powerful, Council members whose political patrons are these same politically and financially powerful interest groups and our city staff whose personal career challenges and professional status with its potential salary growth are tied to larger and more complex job descriptions. On the other side, stand the interests of the citizens of Davis.
On one side stand the hired “consultant” whose career financial success is NOT compatible with “shooting down” projects of the politically powerful, Council members whose political patrons are these same politically and financially powerful interest groups and our city staff whose personal career challenges and professional status with its potential salary growth are tied to larger and more complex job descriptions. On the other side, stand the interests of the citizens of Davis.
The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.
Our population has barely increased since the Wagstaff CC in 2000, and the 2001 General Plan. So, why increase the water supply?? We dont need it for the current population.
There should be a huge effort to reduce water demand, and to reduce the use of water softeners in Davis that depend on salt. (The salt from softeners is one of the biggest causes of why the City has to spend a huge sum of money to “upgrade” the facilities for treating waste water before it enters the environment.
And the water consultants and engineers all get long term lucrative contracts so long as the City Council meekly follows their recommendation to fund and implement those developments. Of course the consultants advise to proceed!
As an attorney, I routinely hire consultants and experts. It is totally up to me to control the nature, scope, and budget of their assignments. Here, the CC majority fails on all three.
(Lamar and Sue … is Don right that each of you have stated that the river water is necessary??? Madness! Dont do it.)
The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.
Our population has barely increased since the Wagstaff CC in 2000, and the 2001 General Plan. So, why increase the water supply?? We dont need it for the current population.
There should be a huge effort to reduce water demand, and to reduce the use of water softeners in Davis that depend on salt. (The salt from softeners is one of the biggest causes of why the City has to spend a huge sum of money to “upgrade” the facilities for treating waste water before it enters the environment.
And the water consultants and engineers all get long term lucrative contracts so long as the City Council meekly follows their recommendation to fund and implement those developments. Of course the consultants advise to proceed!
As an attorney, I routinely hire consultants and experts. It is totally up to me to control the nature, scope, and budget of their assignments. Here, the CC majority fails on all three.
(Lamar and Sue … is Don right that each of you have stated that the river water is necessary??? Madness! Dont do it.)
The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.
Our population has barely increased since the Wagstaff CC in 2000, and the 2001 General Plan. So, why increase the water supply?? We dont need it for the current population.
There should be a huge effort to reduce water demand, and to reduce the use of water softeners in Davis that depend on salt. (The salt from softeners is one of the biggest causes of why the City has to spend a huge sum of money to “upgrade” the facilities for treating waste water before it enters the environment.
And the water consultants and engineers all get long term lucrative contracts so long as the City Council meekly follows their recommendation to fund and implement those developments. Of course the consultants advise to proceed!
As an attorney, I routinely hire consultants and experts. It is totally up to me to control the nature, scope, and budget of their assignments. Here, the CC majority fails on all three.
(Lamar and Sue … is Don right that each of you have stated that the river water is necessary??? Madness! Dont do it.)
The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.
Our population has barely increased since the Wagstaff CC in 2000, and the 2001 General Plan. So, why increase the water supply?? We dont need it for the current population.
There should be a huge effort to reduce water demand, and to reduce the use of water softeners in Davis that depend on salt. (The salt from softeners is one of the biggest causes of why the City has to spend a huge sum of money to “upgrade” the facilities for treating waste water before it enters the environment.
And the water consultants and engineers all get long term lucrative contracts so long as the City Council meekly follows their recommendation to fund and implement those developments. Of course the consultants advise to proceed!
As an attorney, I routinely hire consultants and experts. It is totally up to me to control the nature, scope, and budget of their assignments. Here, the CC majority fails on all three.
(Lamar and Sue … is Don right that each of you have stated that the river water is necessary??? Madness! Dont do it.)
(The foregoing anonymous comment is mine. Pushed the wrong button!)
(The foregoing anonymous comment is mine. Pushed the wrong button!)
(The foregoing anonymous comment is mine. Pushed the wrong button!)
(The foregoing anonymous comment is mine. Pushed the wrong button!)
“Estimates for this cost to the ratepayer begin with a doubling of the cost of water on a monthly basis to an increase of $100 to $200 … “
Again, please cite your source for any projection that the project will increase monthly water cost by $100 (or, apparently now, $200).
“The tough question that Councilmember like Don Saylor never seem to press for is whether the only solution is to go forth with a water supply plan immediately.”
The pattern of state water discharge regulations is such that any delay in this project is likely to cause Davis to be out of compliance sooner rather than later. Just look at the recent history of Dixon if you want to see where that can lead.
“There has been little discussion or acknowledgment about who in the public can afford it.”
The council can determine how the rates are structured. I would urge Lamar and Sue to immediately introduce a progressive water rate structure, including lifeline rates.
“One is forced to ask what the council majority is afraid of by indulging the questions of Councilmember Greenwald or even more responsibly by allowing her experts to come forward.”
It would be great to hear from Sue’s experts. If the council won’t call a meeting, she can rent a hall and hold a public panel discussion.
“That would force the city to once again rely almost completely on ground water for its summer water supply–when water needs will be invariably higher.”
Water transfer purchases would be the source of water in the summer, along with continuing to use the remaining wells.
It’s important to note that many of Davis’ wells are reaching the end of their useful lifespan. Not because they are running out of water, but because the wells themselves need to be replaced. If the surface water project isn’t implemented for another 25 – 30 years, Davis will have to pay to replace all of the wells AND then build the water project.
“If global warming reduces the amount of rainfall or even snowpack in the Sierras, the amount of runoff may be reduced into the Sacramento River. At the very least the water supply may fluctuate more widely meaning some years we have plenty of water and other years we do not.
I know of no climate model that shows the amount of rainfall to the Sacramento watershed will be reduced by global warming. Runoff is not likely to be reduced. The timing might be. Using global warming as an argument against this project is totally bogus.
Water supply will fluctuate widely regardless. Remember 1977?
Mike Hart commented: “An expansion of capacity would allow an expansion of Davis.”
Anonymous said…”The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.”
I don’t think the current water supply is an impediment to growth in Davis for the next 25 – 30 years (or longer), and even Sue agrees the water project will be needed by then.
“Estimates for this cost to the ratepayer begin with a doubling of the cost of water on a monthly basis to an increase of $100 to $200 … “
Again, please cite your source for any projection that the project will increase monthly water cost by $100 (or, apparently now, $200).
“The tough question that Councilmember like Don Saylor never seem to press for is whether the only solution is to go forth with a water supply plan immediately.”
The pattern of state water discharge regulations is such that any delay in this project is likely to cause Davis to be out of compliance sooner rather than later. Just look at the recent history of Dixon if you want to see where that can lead.
“There has been little discussion or acknowledgment about who in the public can afford it.”
The council can determine how the rates are structured. I would urge Lamar and Sue to immediately introduce a progressive water rate structure, including lifeline rates.
“One is forced to ask what the council majority is afraid of by indulging the questions of Councilmember Greenwald or even more responsibly by allowing her experts to come forward.”
It would be great to hear from Sue’s experts. If the council won’t call a meeting, she can rent a hall and hold a public panel discussion.
“That would force the city to once again rely almost completely on ground water for its summer water supply–when water needs will be invariably higher.”
Water transfer purchases would be the source of water in the summer, along with continuing to use the remaining wells.
It’s important to note that many of Davis’ wells are reaching the end of their useful lifespan. Not because they are running out of water, but because the wells themselves need to be replaced. If the surface water project isn’t implemented for another 25 – 30 years, Davis will have to pay to replace all of the wells AND then build the water project.
“If global warming reduces the amount of rainfall or even snowpack in the Sierras, the amount of runoff may be reduced into the Sacramento River. At the very least the water supply may fluctuate more widely meaning some years we have plenty of water and other years we do not.
I know of no climate model that shows the amount of rainfall to the Sacramento watershed will be reduced by global warming. Runoff is not likely to be reduced. The timing might be. Using global warming as an argument against this project is totally bogus.
Water supply will fluctuate widely regardless. Remember 1977?
Mike Hart commented: “An expansion of capacity would allow an expansion of Davis.”
Anonymous said…”The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.”
I don’t think the current water supply is an impediment to growth in Davis for the next 25 – 30 years (or longer), and even Sue agrees the water project will be needed by then.
“Estimates for this cost to the ratepayer begin with a doubling of the cost of water on a monthly basis to an increase of $100 to $200 … “
Again, please cite your source for any projection that the project will increase monthly water cost by $100 (or, apparently now, $200).
“The tough question that Councilmember like Don Saylor never seem to press for is whether the only solution is to go forth with a water supply plan immediately.”
The pattern of state water discharge regulations is such that any delay in this project is likely to cause Davis to be out of compliance sooner rather than later. Just look at the recent history of Dixon if you want to see where that can lead.
“There has been little discussion or acknowledgment about who in the public can afford it.”
The council can determine how the rates are structured. I would urge Lamar and Sue to immediately introduce a progressive water rate structure, including lifeline rates.
“One is forced to ask what the council majority is afraid of by indulging the questions of Councilmember Greenwald or even more responsibly by allowing her experts to come forward.”
It would be great to hear from Sue’s experts. If the council won’t call a meeting, she can rent a hall and hold a public panel discussion.
“That would force the city to once again rely almost completely on ground water for its summer water supply–when water needs will be invariably higher.”
Water transfer purchases would be the source of water in the summer, along with continuing to use the remaining wells.
It’s important to note that many of Davis’ wells are reaching the end of their useful lifespan. Not because they are running out of water, but because the wells themselves need to be replaced. If the surface water project isn’t implemented for another 25 – 30 years, Davis will have to pay to replace all of the wells AND then build the water project.
“If global warming reduces the amount of rainfall or even snowpack in the Sierras, the amount of runoff may be reduced into the Sacramento River. At the very least the water supply may fluctuate more widely meaning some years we have plenty of water and other years we do not.
I know of no climate model that shows the amount of rainfall to the Sacramento watershed will be reduced by global warming. Runoff is not likely to be reduced. The timing might be. Using global warming as an argument against this project is totally bogus.
Water supply will fluctuate widely regardless. Remember 1977?
Mike Hart commented: “An expansion of capacity would allow an expansion of Davis.”
Anonymous said…”The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.”
I don’t think the current water supply is an impediment to growth in Davis for the next 25 – 30 years (or longer), and even Sue agrees the water project will be needed by then.
“Estimates for this cost to the ratepayer begin with a doubling of the cost of water on a monthly basis to an increase of $100 to $200 … “
Again, please cite your source for any projection that the project will increase monthly water cost by $100 (or, apparently now, $200).
“The tough question that Councilmember like Don Saylor never seem to press for is whether the only solution is to go forth with a water supply plan immediately.”
The pattern of state water discharge regulations is such that any delay in this project is likely to cause Davis to be out of compliance sooner rather than later. Just look at the recent history of Dixon if you want to see where that can lead.
“There has been little discussion or acknowledgment about who in the public can afford it.”
The council can determine how the rates are structured. I would urge Lamar and Sue to immediately introduce a progressive water rate structure, including lifeline rates.
“One is forced to ask what the council majority is afraid of by indulging the questions of Councilmember Greenwald or even more responsibly by allowing her experts to come forward.”
It would be great to hear from Sue’s experts. If the council won’t call a meeting, she can rent a hall and hold a public panel discussion.
“That would force the city to once again rely almost completely on ground water for its summer water supply–when water needs will be invariably higher.”
Water transfer purchases would be the source of water in the summer, along with continuing to use the remaining wells.
It’s important to note that many of Davis’ wells are reaching the end of their useful lifespan. Not because they are running out of water, but because the wells themselves need to be replaced. If the surface water project isn’t implemented for another 25 – 30 years, Davis will have to pay to replace all of the wells AND then build the water project.
“If global warming reduces the amount of rainfall or even snowpack in the Sierras, the amount of runoff may be reduced into the Sacramento River. At the very least the water supply may fluctuate more widely meaning some years we have plenty of water and other years we do not.
I know of no climate model that shows the amount of rainfall to the Sacramento watershed will be reduced by global warming. Runoff is not likely to be reduced. The timing might be. Using global warming as an argument against this project is totally bogus.
Water supply will fluctuate widely regardless. Remember 1977?
Mike Hart commented: “An expansion of capacity would allow an expansion of Davis.”
Anonymous said…”The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.”
I don’t think the current water supply is an impediment to growth in Davis for the next 25 – 30 years (or longer), and even Sue agrees the water project will be needed by then.
“It would be great to hear from Sue’s experts. If the council won’t call a meeting, she can rent a hall and hold a public panel discussion.”
This is a great idea, maybe we can convince her to do that.
“It would be great to hear from Sue’s experts. If the council won’t call a meeting, she can rent a hall and hold a public panel discussion.”
This is a great idea, maybe we can convince her to do that.
“It would be great to hear from Sue’s experts. If the council won’t call a meeting, she can rent a hall and hold a public panel discussion.”
This is a great idea, maybe we can convince her to do that.
“It would be great to hear from Sue’s experts. If the council won’t call a meeting, she can rent a hall and hold a public panel discussion.”
This is a great idea, maybe we can convince her to do that.
I just want to make a comment on the consultants’ recommendation for a “balanced” portfolio for water sources. After the first studies by the consultant’s, they were leaning toward a recommendation to continue to use well water only, with no river water project. However, after they were sat down with staff at public works and “educated” on the issue from public works’ point of view, they then decided we needed the river water project.
As to the costs: in the original report done in the mid-to late 90’s , it was clear that the river water project would result in a tripling or even quadrupling of the average water bill here in Davis. I encourage you to back and check the report.
And associated with that report, a graphic presented early on which has since disappeared, conveniently, showed the population increases that would be allowed by the river project. It would allow an increase to double our then-current population. If you want to continue to argue that this is not about growth, check out that graph, if you can find it.
I just want to make a comment on the consultants’ recommendation for a “balanced” portfolio for water sources. After the first studies by the consultant’s, they were leaning toward a recommendation to continue to use well water only, with no river water project. However, after they were sat down with staff at public works and “educated” on the issue from public works’ point of view, they then decided we needed the river water project.
As to the costs: in the original report done in the mid-to late 90’s , it was clear that the river water project would result in a tripling or even quadrupling of the average water bill here in Davis. I encourage you to back and check the report.
And associated with that report, a graphic presented early on which has since disappeared, conveniently, showed the population increases that would be allowed by the river project. It would allow an increase to double our then-current population. If you want to continue to argue that this is not about growth, check out that graph, if you can find it.
I just want to make a comment on the consultants’ recommendation for a “balanced” portfolio for water sources. After the first studies by the consultant’s, they were leaning toward a recommendation to continue to use well water only, with no river water project. However, after they were sat down with staff at public works and “educated” on the issue from public works’ point of view, they then decided we needed the river water project.
As to the costs: in the original report done in the mid-to late 90’s , it was clear that the river water project would result in a tripling or even quadrupling of the average water bill here in Davis. I encourage you to back and check the report.
And associated with that report, a graphic presented early on which has since disappeared, conveniently, showed the population increases that would be allowed by the river project. It would allow an increase to double our then-current population. If you want to continue to argue that this is not about growth, check out that graph, if you can find it.
I just want to make a comment on the consultants’ recommendation for a “balanced” portfolio for water sources. After the first studies by the consultant’s, they were leaning toward a recommendation to continue to use well water only, with no river water project. However, after they were sat down with staff at public works and “educated” on the issue from public works’ point of view, they then decided we needed the river water project.
As to the costs: in the original report done in the mid-to late 90’s , it was clear that the river water project would result in a tripling or even quadrupling of the average water bill here in Davis. I encourage you to back and check the report.
And associated with that report, a graphic presented early on which has since disappeared, conveniently, showed the population increases that would be allowed by the river project. It would allow an increase to double our then-current population. If you want to continue to argue that this is not about growth, check out that graph, if you can find it.
“The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.”
This is wrong. I am surprised a former member of the council who is a lawyer would lie like this.
I’m a contractor. I’ve asked around. All of the big developers in Davis oppose the surface water project. You should know that. If you don’t, first ask them before you falsely accuse them.
The surface water project will not add water capacity. It will replace existing well water supplies. Also, the conversion of farm land to housing reduces the demand for water.
For reasons I don’t understand, you are confusing the issue of the new wastewater treatment plant, which we have no choice but to build, with the surface water project. The former will add capacity and therefore permit more growth than our current plant permits. The latter won’t add capacity to what we have now.
If you want to jump on your anti-growth hobby horse, complain about the wastewater treatment project, which is being forced on us by the Clean Water Act.
As a lawyer who served on the city council, you should try to be more honest.
“The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.”
This is wrong. I am surprised a former member of the council who is a lawyer would lie like this.
I’m a contractor. I’ve asked around. All of the big developers in Davis oppose the surface water project. You should know that. If you don’t, first ask them before you falsely accuse them.
The surface water project will not add water capacity. It will replace existing well water supplies. Also, the conversion of farm land to housing reduces the demand for water.
For reasons I don’t understand, you are confusing the issue of the new wastewater treatment plant, which we have no choice but to build, with the surface water project. The former will add capacity and therefore permit more growth than our current plant permits. The latter won’t add capacity to what we have now.
If you want to jump on your anti-growth hobby horse, complain about the wastewater treatment project, which is being forced on us by the Clean Water Act.
As a lawyer who served on the city council, you should try to be more honest.
“The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.”
This is wrong. I am surprised a former member of the council who is a lawyer would lie like this.
I’m a contractor. I’ve asked around. All of the big developers in Davis oppose the surface water project. You should know that. If you don’t, first ask them before you falsely accuse them.
The surface water project will not add water capacity. It will replace existing well water supplies. Also, the conversion of farm land to housing reduces the demand for water.
For reasons I don’t understand, you are confusing the issue of the new wastewater treatment plant, which we have no choice but to build, with the surface water project. The former will add capacity and therefore permit more growth than our current plant permits. The latter won’t add capacity to what we have now.
If you want to jump on your anti-growth hobby horse, complain about the wastewater treatment project, which is being forced on us by the Clean Water Act.
As a lawyer who served on the city council, you should try to be more honest.
“The surface water is all about establishing a regular supply for long term growth projects.”
This is wrong. I am surprised a former member of the council who is a lawyer would lie like this.
I’m a contractor. I’ve asked around. All of the big developers in Davis oppose the surface water project. You should know that. If you don’t, first ask them before you falsely accuse them.
The surface water project will not add water capacity. It will replace existing well water supplies. Also, the conversion of farm land to housing reduces the demand for water.
For reasons I don’t understand, you are confusing the issue of the new wastewater treatment plant, which we have no choice but to build, with the surface water project. The former will add capacity and therefore permit more growth than our current plant permits. The latter won’t add capacity to what we have now.
If you want to jump on your anti-growth hobby horse, complain about the wastewater treatment project, which is being forced on us by the Clean Water Act.
As a lawyer who served on the city council, you should try to be more honest.
good article and discussion. Thanks, DPD.
good article and discussion. Thanks, DPD.
good article and discussion. Thanks, DPD.
good article and discussion. Thanks, DPD.
The Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant proposed upgrade project does not add wastewater treatment capacity. Right now 65,890 people use 5.55 million gallons per day(mgd) of the permitted capacity of 7.5 mgd. If the population of Davis was 82,882 only 6.96 mgd would flow to the plant. This is based on 84-gallon per day, per-capita (gpdpc), with even more conservation measures population capacity of the plant would be higher.
The plant could be expanded to add even more capacity, but that is not the plan right now. It does not matter how much water a city has, it is how much water a city can treat and then discharge that is the growth control check.
The Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant proposed upgrade project does not add wastewater treatment capacity. Right now 65,890 people use 5.55 million gallons per day(mgd) of the permitted capacity of 7.5 mgd. If the population of Davis was 82,882 only 6.96 mgd would flow to the plant. This is based on 84-gallon per day, per-capita (gpdpc), with even more conservation measures population capacity of the plant would be higher.
The plant could be expanded to add even more capacity, but that is not the plan right now. It does not matter how much water a city has, it is how much water a city can treat and then discharge that is the growth control check.
The Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant proposed upgrade project does not add wastewater treatment capacity. Right now 65,890 people use 5.55 million gallons per day(mgd) of the permitted capacity of 7.5 mgd. If the population of Davis was 82,882 only 6.96 mgd would flow to the plant. This is based on 84-gallon per day, per-capita (gpdpc), with even more conservation measures population capacity of the plant would be higher.
The plant could be expanded to add even more capacity, but that is not the plan right now. It does not matter how much water a city has, it is how much water a city can treat and then discharge that is the growth control check.
The Davis Wastewater Pollution Control Plant proposed upgrade project does not add wastewater treatment capacity. Right now 65,890 people use 5.55 million gallons per day(mgd) of the permitted capacity of 7.5 mgd. If the population of Davis was 82,882 only 6.96 mgd would flow to the plant. This is based on 84-gallon per day, per-capita (gpdpc), with even more conservation measures population capacity of the plant would be higher.
The plant could be expanded to add even more capacity, but that is not the plan right now. It does not matter how much water a city has, it is how much water a city can treat and then discharge that is the growth control check.
I have been talking with numerous private sector, state and University water experts, and I am in the process of compiling a comprehensive report on the surface-water, wastewater issue.
I am still wrapping up a few details. I will show that the NWRA report is deeply flawed, and its conclusions unwarranted.
The saddest thing about this situation is that we have a number of the top water experts in country water who are UCD professors and professors emeriti.
I have made a numerous council motions to invite them to oversee a truly independent study out of the City manager’s office, rather than out of the public works department. A number of these experts consult widely, and one is a specialist in the economics of water projects, as well as the engineering of them. My motion was that the focus of the study would be the question: Can we postpone the water project for 25 or 30 years in order that the wastewater project can be paid off before ratepayers have to start paying for the water project.
I have made this motion repeatedly, and it has been voted down repeatedly 3-2. In response to my repeated motions, the council majority made a motion to have an independent study overseen by public works.
Now, an independent study overseen by public works is an oxymoron. And in fact, when one of our high-level private sector water engineers in town heard that the National Water Research Institute was selected by public works to do this study, the engineer warned me that it was guaranteed to be a rubber stamp report.
In fact, one of the members of this review team had been a paid consultant who was hired to do a huge chunk of the initial studies – hardly an independent view.
The National Water Research Institute study was superficial and deeply flawed on every level.
To give you just one example which everyone should be able to understand: The NWRA report gave six reasons that we can’t postpone the surface water project. One was that it would cost more later. In support of this, they presented a non-inflation adjusted historical graph of construction costs.
Anyone who understands economics will know that we have no way of knowing whether the inflation adjusted costs of doing this project in twenty-five or thirty years will be higher or lower. Secondly, the time value of the money spent on the project is not addressed. Thirdly, even if, hypothetically (again, there is guarantee of this) it would turn out that it would cost somewhat more to do the project in 30 years; the ratepayers who lives here in thirty years would better afford to pay it, because they would not have to be paying for a $250 million wastewater treatment plant at the same time.
The other five reasons were equally flaws. Again, I have one more question need to finish researching before I write up my report.
The surface water and wastewater projects together are now estimated to cost us about half a billion dollars (a little less if we eliminate all of the green components such as solar and water reuse; a little more if we include them).
No city of 65,000 people undertakes a half billion dollars of capital improvement water projects at one time; it just isn’t done. It would put Davis completely off the charts in terms of expense.
If we go forward with both projects simultaneously, Davis would become famous throughout the state.
Any time a California city came forward with an unrealistically ambitious capital improvement project, local editorials would caution: “Remember what happened to the City of Davis”.
I have been talking with numerous private sector, state and University water experts, and I am in the process of compiling a comprehensive report on the surface-water, wastewater issue.
I am still wrapping up a few details. I will show that the NWRA report is deeply flawed, and its conclusions unwarranted.
The saddest thing about this situation is that we have a number of the top water experts in country water who are UCD professors and professors emeriti.
I have made a numerous council motions to invite them to oversee a truly independent study out of the City manager’s office, rather than out of the public works department. A number of these experts consult widely, and one is a specialist in the economics of water projects, as well as the engineering of them. My motion was that the focus of the study would be the question: Can we postpone the water project for 25 or 30 years in order that the wastewater project can be paid off before ratepayers have to start paying for the water project.
I have made this motion repeatedly, and it has been voted down repeatedly 3-2. In response to my repeated motions, the council majority made a motion to have an independent study overseen by public works.
Now, an independent study overseen by public works is an oxymoron. And in fact, when one of our high-level private sector water engineers in town heard that the National Water Research Institute was selected by public works to do this study, the engineer warned me that it was guaranteed to be a rubber stamp report.
In fact, one of the members of this review team had been a paid consultant who was hired to do a huge chunk of the initial studies – hardly an independent view.
The National Water Research Institute study was superficial and deeply flawed on every level.
To give you just one example which everyone should be able to understand: The NWRA report gave six reasons that we can’t postpone the surface water project. One was that it would cost more later. In support of this, they presented a non-inflation adjusted historical graph of construction costs.
Anyone who understands economics will know that we have no way of knowing whether the inflation adjusted costs of doing this project in twenty-five or thirty years will be higher or lower. Secondly, the time value of the money spent on the project is not addressed. Thirdly, even if, hypothetically (again, there is guarantee of this) it would turn out that it would cost somewhat more to do the project in 30 years; the ratepayers who lives here in thirty years would better afford to pay it, because they would not have to be paying for a $250 million wastewater treatment plant at the same time.
The other five reasons were equally flaws. Again, I have one more question need to finish researching before I write up my report.
The surface water and wastewater projects together are now estimated to cost us about half a billion dollars (a little less if we eliminate all of the green components such as solar and water reuse; a little more if we include them).
No city of 65,000 people undertakes a half billion dollars of capital improvement water projects at one time; it just isn’t done. It would put Davis completely off the charts in terms of expense.
If we go forward with both projects simultaneously, Davis would become famous throughout the state.
Any time a California city came forward with an unrealistically ambitious capital improvement project, local editorials would caution: “Remember what happened to the City of Davis”.
I have been talking with numerous private sector, state and University water experts, and I am in the process of compiling a comprehensive report on the surface-water, wastewater issue.
I am still wrapping up a few details. I will show that the NWRA report is deeply flawed, and its conclusions unwarranted.
The saddest thing about this situation is that we have a number of the top water experts in country water who are UCD professors and professors emeriti.
I have made a numerous council motions to invite them to oversee a truly independent study out of the City manager’s office, rather than out of the public works department. A number of these experts consult widely, and one is a specialist in the economics of water projects, as well as the engineering of them. My motion was that the focus of the study would be the question: Can we postpone the water project for 25 or 30 years in order that the wastewater project can be paid off before ratepayers have to start paying for the water project.
I have made this motion repeatedly, and it has been voted down repeatedly 3-2. In response to my repeated motions, the council majority made a motion to have an independent study overseen by public works.
Now, an independent study overseen by public works is an oxymoron. And in fact, when one of our high-level private sector water engineers in town heard that the National Water Research Institute was selected by public works to do this study, the engineer warned me that it was guaranteed to be a rubber stamp report.
In fact, one of the members of this review team had been a paid consultant who was hired to do a huge chunk of the initial studies – hardly an independent view.
The National Water Research Institute study was superficial and deeply flawed on every level.
To give you just one example which everyone should be able to understand: The NWRA report gave six reasons that we can’t postpone the surface water project. One was that it would cost more later. In support of this, they presented a non-inflation adjusted historical graph of construction costs.
Anyone who understands economics will know that we have no way of knowing whether the inflation adjusted costs of doing this project in twenty-five or thirty years will be higher or lower. Secondly, the time value of the money spent on the project is not addressed. Thirdly, even if, hypothetically (again, there is guarantee of this) it would turn out that it would cost somewhat more to do the project in 30 years; the ratepayers who lives here in thirty years would better afford to pay it, because they would not have to be paying for a $250 million wastewater treatment plant at the same time.
The other five reasons were equally flaws. Again, I have one more question need to finish researching before I write up my report.
The surface water and wastewater projects together are now estimated to cost us about half a billion dollars (a little less if we eliminate all of the green components such as solar and water reuse; a little more if we include them).
No city of 65,000 people undertakes a half billion dollars of capital improvement water projects at one time; it just isn’t done. It would put Davis completely off the charts in terms of expense.
If we go forward with both projects simultaneously, Davis would become famous throughout the state.
Any time a California city came forward with an unrealistically ambitious capital improvement project, local editorials would caution: “Remember what happened to the City of Davis”.
I have been talking with numerous private sector, state and University water experts, and I am in the process of compiling a comprehensive report on the surface-water, wastewater issue.
I am still wrapping up a few details. I will show that the NWRA report is deeply flawed, and its conclusions unwarranted.
The saddest thing about this situation is that we have a number of the top water experts in country water who are UCD professors and professors emeriti.
I have made a numerous council motions to invite them to oversee a truly independent study out of the City manager’s office, rather than out of the public works department. A number of these experts consult widely, and one is a specialist in the economics of water projects, as well as the engineering of them. My motion was that the focus of the study would be the question: Can we postpone the water project for 25 or 30 years in order that the wastewater project can be paid off before ratepayers have to start paying for the water project.
I have made this motion repeatedly, and it has been voted down repeatedly 3-2. In response to my repeated motions, the council majority made a motion to have an independent study overseen by public works.
Now, an independent study overseen by public works is an oxymoron. And in fact, when one of our high-level private sector water engineers in town heard that the National Water Research Institute was selected by public works to do this study, the engineer warned me that it was guaranteed to be a rubber stamp report.
In fact, one of the members of this review team had been a paid consultant who was hired to do a huge chunk of the initial studies – hardly an independent view.
The National Water Research Institute study was superficial and deeply flawed on every level.
To give you just one example which everyone should be able to understand: The NWRA report gave six reasons that we can’t postpone the surface water project. One was that it would cost more later. In support of this, they presented a non-inflation adjusted historical graph of construction costs.
Anyone who understands economics will know that we have no way of knowing whether the inflation adjusted costs of doing this project in twenty-five or thirty years will be higher or lower. Secondly, the time value of the money spent on the project is not addressed. Thirdly, even if, hypothetically (again, there is guarantee of this) it would turn out that it would cost somewhat more to do the project in 30 years; the ratepayers who lives here in thirty years would better afford to pay it, because they would not have to be paying for a $250 million wastewater treatment plant at the same time.
The other five reasons were equally flaws. Again, I have one more question need to finish researching before I write up my report.
The surface water and wastewater projects together are now estimated to cost us about half a billion dollars (a little less if we eliminate all of the green components such as solar and water reuse; a little more if we include them).
No city of 65,000 people undertakes a half billion dollars of capital improvement water projects at one time; it just isn’t done. It would put Davis completely off the charts in terms of expense.
If we go forward with both projects simultaneously, Davis would become famous throughout the state.
Any time a California city came forward with an unrealistically ambitious capital improvement project, local editorials would caution: “Remember what happened to the City of Davis”.
If nothing is done to the permitted capacity of the wastewater plant about 17,000 more people could live in Davis. If 2.5 people live in a house, 6,800 houses could be built. If the City even built at the 1% growth cap it would take about 25 years to reach the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. If the City had a little bit more of home water discharge conservation measures, like no need for water softners which use a bit of water and discharge the sodium salts to the wastewater plant, the capacity for more growth with the existing 7.5 gpd could be extended beyond 25 years.
If nothing is done to the permitted capacity of the wastewater plant about 17,000 more people could live in Davis. If 2.5 people live in a house, 6,800 houses could be built. If the City even built at the 1% growth cap it would take about 25 years to reach the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. If the City had a little bit more of home water discharge conservation measures, like no need for water softners which use a bit of water and discharge the sodium salts to the wastewater plant, the capacity for more growth with the existing 7.5 gpd could be extended beyond 25 years.
If nothing is done to the permitted capacity of the wastewater plant about 17,000 more people could live in Davis. If 2.5 people live in a house, 6,800 houses could be built. If the City even built at the 1% growth cap it would take about 25 years to reach the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. If the City had a little bit more of home water discharge conservation measures, like no need for water softners which use a bit of water and discharge the sodium salts to the wastewater plant, the capacity for more growth with the existing 7.5 gpd could be extended beyond 25 years.
If nothing is done to the permitted capacity of the wastewater plant about 17,000 more people could live in Davis. If 2.5 people live in a house, 6,800 houses could be built. If the City even built at the 1% growth cap it would take about 25 years to reach the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. If the City had a little bit more of home water discharge conservation measures, like no need for water softners which use a bit of water and discharge the sodium salts to the wastewater plant, the capacity for more growth with the existing 7.5 gpd could be extended beyond 25 years.
Don Shore:
I would love to talk with you about some of these public works assertions. Why don’t you give me a ring.
Obviously, the biggest problem that I have is that the council has voted down my motions to get the top experts involved. World class experts don’t line up at the microphone for public comment; they have to be invited.
The second problem is that the the city is a primary employer of most of the local private sector water engineers. It would put their lively hoods is jeopardy to put forth unsolicited opinions.
Hopefully, the public will demand that the council invite the top University experts (and every water engineer in town knows who they are) to conduct a thorough exploration of the feasibility and approach to delaying the water project, and lowering the cost of the wastewater treatment plant.
Don Shore:
I would love to talk with you about some of these public works assertions. Why don’t you give me a ring.
Obviously, the biggest problem that I have is that the council has voted down my motions to get the top experts involved. World class experts don’t line up at the microphone for public comment; they have to be invited.
The second problem is that the the city is a primary employer of most of the local private sector water engineers. It would put their lively hoods is jeopardy to put forth unsolicited opinions.
Hopefully, the public will demand that the council invite the top University experts (and every water engineer in town knows who they are) to conduct a thorough exploration of the feasibility and approach to delaying the water project, and lowering the cost of the wastewater treatment plant.
Don Shore:
I would love to talk with you about some of these public works assertions. Why don’t you give me a ring.
Obviously, the biggest problem that I have is that the council has voted down my motions to get the top experts involved. World class experts don’t line up at the microphone for public comment; they have to be invited.
The second problem is that the the city is a primary employer of most of the local private sector water engineers. It would put their lively hoods is jeopardy to put forth unsolicited opinions.
Hopefully, the public will demand that the council invite the top University experts (and every water engineer in town knows who they are) to conduct a thorough exploration of the feasibility and approach to delaying the water project, and lowering the cost of the wastewater treatment plant.
Don Shore:
I would love to talk with you about some of these public works assertions. Why don’t you give me a ring.
Obviously, the biggest problem that I have is that the council has voted down my motions to get the top experts involved. World class experts don’t line up at the microphone for public comment; they have to be invited.
The second problem is that the the city is a primary employer of most of the local private sector water engineers. It would put their lively hoods is jeopardy to put forth unsolicited opinions.
Hopefully, the public will demand that the council invite the top University experts (and every water engineer in town knows who they are) to conduct a thorough exploration of the feasibility and approach to delaying the water project, and lowering the cost of the wastewater treatment plant.
Don Shor: I know of no climate model that shows the amount of rainfall to the Sacramento watershed will be reduced by global warming. Runoff is not likely to be reduced. The timing might be.
The generally discussed scenario is that snow pack would melt sooner in the year. The problem might be that it would be harder to conserve that runoff for use later in the season — September, October — compared to the way things have generally worked up until now.
Don Shor: I know of no climate model that shows the amount of rainfall to the Sacramento watershed will be reduced by global warming. Runoff is not likely to be reduced. The timing might be.
The generally discussed scenario is that snow pack would melt sooner in the year. The problem might be that it would be harder to conserve that runoff for use later in the season — September, October — compared to the way things have generally worked up until now.
Don Shor: I know of no climate model that shows the amount of rainfall to the Sacramento watershed will be reduced by global warming. Runoff is not likely to be reduced. The timing might be.
The generally discussed scenario is that snow pack would melt sooner in the year. The problem might be that it would be harder to conserve that runoff for use later in the season — September, October — compared to the way things have generally worked up until now.
Don Shor: I know of no climate model that shows the amount of rainfall to the Sacramento watershed will be reduced by global warming. Runoff is not likely to be reduced. The timing might be.
The generally discussed scenario is that snow pack would melt sooner in the year. The problem might be that it would be harder to conserve that runoff for use later in the season — September, October — compared to the way things have generally worked up until now.
I meant to say chloride salts of calcium and magnesium that are flushed out through the drain pipe. A water softner regeneration cycle can create a lot of salty water, something like 25 gallons per regeneration cycle.
I meant to say chloride salts of calcium and magnesium that are flushed out through the drain pipe. A water softner regeneration cycle can create a lot of salty water, something like 25 gallons per regeneration cycle.
I meant to say chloride salts of calcium and magnesium that are flushed out through the drain pipe. A water softner regeneration cycle can create a lot of salty water, something like 25 gallons per regeneration cycle.
I meant to say chloride salts of calcium and magnesium that are flushed out through the drain pipe. A water softner regeneration cycle can create a lot of salty water, something like 25 gallons per regeneration cycle.
Sue, I doubt if the council is going to vote as you’d like regarding another study. But I think a public presentation wouldn’t be too hard to arrange. That might get more public awareness and could prompt a more favorable vote.
wdf: Regarding the impact of global warming, (which I repeat is IMO a bogus issue on this topic):
If there are no more reservoirs built (the governor has proposed two, at least), or if the current ones in Northern California aren’t expanded, there might be a problem with the earlier snow melt making less Sacramento River water available. (There will also be lots of other water- and flood-related problems if no further water storage and flood control projects are developed statewide.) The Sites Reservoir proposed near Maxwell, at 1.9 million acre-feet or more, would be a source of water for downstream users during summer months, stored during higher flow winter months.
The most extensive modeling that I have seen about the impact of global warming on specific watersheds of California indicates that the likely scenario is:
–greater rainfall in Northern California.
The biggest increases would be in the northwest part of the state and on the lower elevations of the Sierra. But the area north of the Bay and west of the causeway would have significantly higher rainfall.
So the watershed that recharges our groundwater locally would have more water, and there would be greater flow into Lake Berryessa (too bad for Davis, it isn’t available) and Clear Lake.
–earlier runoff due to lower snowpack and earlier melting.
More water falling as rain, less as snow.
Bummer for Sacramento, but this would mean greater flows in the Sacramento River precisely during the periods when Davis would be withdrawing water directly. Water would also be withdrawn later via water transfer agreements. If there isn’t enough water for that, the groundwater is still there.
I have seen no models that project less water overall for Northern California. The main concern is storage, flooding, and the earlier timing of water flow.
Sue, I doubt if the council is going to vote as you’d like regarding another study. But I think a public presentation wouldn’t be too hard to arrange. That might get more public awareness and could prompt a more favorable vote.
wdf: Regarding the impact of global warming, (which I repeat is IMO a bogus issue on this topic):
If there are no more reservoirs built (the governor has proposed two, at least), or if the current ones in Northern California aren’t expanded, there might be a problem with the earlier snow melt making less Sacramento River water available. (There will also be lots of other water- and flood-related problems if no further water storage and flood control projects are developed statewide.) The Sites Reservoir proposed near Maxwell, at 1.9 million acre-feet or more, would be a source of water for downstream users during summer months, stored during higher flow winter months.
The most extensive modeling that I have seen about the impact of global warming on specific watersheds of California indicates that the likely scenario is:
–greater rainfall in Northern California.
The biggest increases would be in the northwest part of the state and on the lower elevations of the Sierra. But the area north of the Bay and west of the causeway would have significantly higher rainfall.
So the watershed that recharges our groundwater locally would have more water, and there would be greater flow into Lake Berryessa (too bad for Davis, it isn’t available) and Clear Lake.
–earlier runoff due to lower snowpack and earlier melting.
More water falling as rain, less as snow.
Bummer for Sacramento, but this would mean greater flows in the Sacramento River precisely during the periods when Davis would be withdrawing water directly. Water would also be withdrawn later via water transfer agreements. If there isn’t enough water for that, the groundwater is still there.
I have seen no models that project less water overall for Northern California. The main concern is storage, flooding, and the earlier timing of water flow.
Sue, I doubt if the council is going to vote as you’d like regarding another study. But I think a public presentation wouldn’t be too hard to arrange. That might get more public awareness and could prompt a more favorable vote.
wdf: Regarding the impact of global warming, (which I repeat is IMO a bogus issue on this topic):
If there are no more reservoirs built (the governor has proposed two, at least), or if the current ones in Northern California aren’t expanded, there might be a problem with the earlier snow melt making less Sacramento River water available. (There will also be lots of other water- and flood-related problems if no further water storage and flood control projects are developed statewide.) The Sites Reservoir proposed near Maxwell, at 1.9 million acre-feet or more, would be a source of water for downstream users during summer months, stored during higher flow winter months.
The most extensive modeling that I have seen about the impact of global warming on specific watersheds of California indicates that the likely scenario is:
–greater rainfall in Northern California.
The biggest increases would be in the northwest part of the state and on the lower elevations of the Sierra. But the area north of the Bay and west of the causeway would have significantly higher rainfall.
So the watershed that recharges our groundwater locally would have more water, and there would be greater flow into Lake Berryessa (too bad for Davis, it isn’t available) and Clear Lake.
–earlier runoff due to lower snowpack and earlier melting.
More water falling as rain, less as snow.
Bummer for Sacramento, but this would mean greater flows in the Sacramento River precisely during the periods when Davis would be withdrawing water directly. Water would also be withdrawn later via water transfer agreements. If there isn’t enough water for that, the groundwater is still there.
I have seen no models that project less water overall for Northern California. The main concern is storage, flooding, and the earlier timing of water flow.
Sue, I doubt if the council is going to vote as you’d like regarding another study. But I think a public presentation wouldn’t be too hard to arrange. That might get more public awareness and could prompt a more favorable vote.
wdf: Regarding the impact of global warming, (which I repeat is IMO a bogus issue on this topic):
If there are no more reservoirs built (the governor has proposed two, at least), or if the current ones in Northern California aren’t expanded, there might be a problem with the earlier snow melt making less Sacramento River water available. (There will also be lots of other water- and flood-related problems if no further water storage and flood control projects are developed statewide.) The Sites Reservoir proposed near Maxwell, at 1.9 million acre-feet or more, would be a source of water for downstream users during summer months, stored during higher flow winter months.
The most extensive modeling that I have seen about the impact of global warming on specific watersheds of California indicates that the likely scenario is:
–greater rainfall in Northern California.
The biggest increases would be in the northwest part of the state and on the lower elevations of the Sierra. But the area north of the Bay and west of the causeway would have significantly higher rainfall.
So the watershed that recharges our groundwater locally would have more water, and there would be greater flow into Lake Berryessa (too bad for Davis, it isn’t available) and Clear Lake.
–earlier runoff due to lower snowpack and earlier melting.
More water falling as rain, less as snow.
Bummer for Sacramento, but this would mean greater flows in the Sacramento River precisely during the periods when Davis would be withdrawing water directly. Water would also be withdrawn later via water transfer agreements. If there isn’t enough water for that, the groundwater is still there.
I have seen no models that project less water overall for Northern California. The main concern is storage, flooding, and the earlier timing of water flow.
Interesting article on water softeners:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1146604.html
Interesting article on water softeners:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1146604.html
Interesting article on water softeners:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1146604.html
Interesting article on water softeners:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1146604.html
Sue, you need to tell us how to go about demanding that your experts be consulted or somehow given a chance to voice their views. Name names, then let us know how to get a town hall meeting together so the public can listen to what these experts have to say. It is already clear the Council majority is not interested in allowing them into Council chambers, so how do we facilitate this?
As for Don Saylor’s comments, all his editorial made clear is 1) he is for the water project as is now – weren’t some of the consultants in support of the water project seen at one of his fundraisers?; 2) he was trying to justify his walkout with Ruth as somehow appropriate, when we all know it wasn’t; 3) implying Sue’s questions were not within proper process, when we all know Sue was doing exactly what needed to be done.
My latest water bill jumped from $80 last pay period to $200. If this is any indication of what we are in for, look for a mass foreclosure problem for those who cannot pay their utility bills.
Sue, you need to tell us how to go about demanding that your experts be consulted or somehow given a chance to voice their views. Name names, then let us know how to get a town hall meeting together so the public can listen to what these experts have to say. It is already clear the Council majority is not interested in allowing them into Council chambers, so how do we facilitate this?
As for Don Saylor’s comments, all his editorial made clear is 1) he is for the water project as is now – weren’t some of the consultants in support of the water project seen at one of his fundraisers?; 2) he was trying to justify his walkout with Ruth as somehow appropriate, when we all know it wasn’t; 3) implying Sue’s questions were not within proper process, when we all know Sue was doing exactly what needed to be done.
My latest water bill jumped from $80 last pay period to $200. If this is any indication of what we are in for, look for a mass foreclosure problem for those who cannot pay their utility bills.
Sue, you need to tell us how to go about demanding that your experts be consulted or somehow given a chance to voice their views. Name names, then let us know how to get a town hall meeting together so the public can listen to what these experts have to say. It is already clear the Council majority is not interested in allowing them into Council chambers, so how do we facilitate this?
As for Don Saylor’s comments, all his editorial made clear is 1) he is for the water project as is now – weren’t some of the consultants in support of the water project seen at one of his fundraisers?; 2) he was trying to justify his walkout with Ruth as somehow appropriate, when we all know it wasn’t; 3) implying Sue’s questions were not within proper process, when we all know Sue was doing exactly what needed to be done.
My latest water bill jumped from $80 last pay period to $200. If this is any indication of what we are in for, look for a mass foreclosure problem for those who cannot pay their utility bills.
Sue, you need to tell us how to go about demanding that your experts be consulted or somehow given a chance to voice their views. Name names, then let us know how to get a town hall meeting together so the public can listen to what these experts have to say. It is already clear the Council majority is not interested in allowing them into Council chambers, so how do we facilitate this?
As for Don Saylor’s comments, all his editorial made clear is 1) he is for the water project as is now – weren’t some of the consultants in support of the water project seen at one of his fundraisers?; 2) he was trying to justify his walkout with Ruth as somehow appropriate, when we all know it wasn’t; 3) implying Sue’s questions were not within proper process, when we all know Sue was doing exactly what needed to be done.
My latest water bill jumped from $80 last pay period to $200. If this is any indication of what we are in for, look for a mass foreclosure problem for those who cannot pay their utility bills.
CORRECTION: …who cannot pay their utility bills and mortgage payments.
CORRECTION: …who cannot pay their utility bills and mortgage payments.
CORRECTION: …who cannot pay their utility bills and mortgage payments.
CORRECTION: …who cannot pay their utility bills and mortgage payments.
I have tried to explain that professionals are disinclined to insert themselves uninvited into the political fray.
I am going to get a few more questions answered, and present my findings.
Don’t despair. When the magnitude of fiscal debacle is fully grasped, I have some optimism that various stakeholders will come forward. The current course of action is a disaster for everyone, developers and chamber of commerce included.
I have tried to explain that professionals are disinclined to insert themselves uninvited into the political fray.
I am going to get a few more questions answered, and present my findings.
Don’t despair. When the magnitude of fiscal debacle is fully grasped, I have some optimism that various stakeholders will come forward. The current course of action is a disaster for everyone, developers and chamber of commerce included.
I have tried to explain that professionals are disinclined to insert themselves uninvited into the political fray.
I am going to get a few more questions answered, and present my findings.
Don’t despair. When the magnitude of fiscal debacle is fully grasped, I have some optimism that various stakeholders will come forward. The current course of action is a disaster for everyone, developers and chamber of commerce included.
I have tried to explain that professionals are disinclined to insert themselves uninvited into the political fray.
I am going to get a few more questions answered, and present my findings.
Don’t despair. When the magnitude of fiscal debacle is fully grasped, I have some optimism that various stakeholders will come forward. The current course of action is a disaster for everyone, developers and chamber of commerce included.
To have Public Works hire city consultants, especially on a sort of per annum fee basis, has proved time and again to be an exercise in corruption. Thus we have rubber stamped reports on street function, safety issues and now the water problem.
I deplore the Asmundsen Saylor stifling of responsible questioning in public hearings as well.
To have Public Works hire city consultants, especially on a sort of per annum fee basis, has proved time and again to be an exercise in corruption. Thus we have rubber stamped reports on street function, safety issues and now the water problem.
I deplore the Asmundsen Saylor stifling of responsible questioning in public hearings as well.
To have Public Works hire city consultants, especially on a sort of per annum fee basis, has proved time and again to be an exercise in corruption. Thus we have rubber stamped reports on street function, safety issues and now the water problem.
I deplore the Asmundsen Saylor stifling of responsible questioning in public hearings as well.
To have Public Works hire city consultants, especially on a sort of per annum fee basis, has proved time and again to be an exercise in corruption. Thus we have rubber stamped reports on street function, safety issues and now the water problem.
I deplore the Asmundsen Saylor stifling of responsible questioning in public hearings as well.
Sue,
Do you drink Davis tap water?
Sue,
Do you drink Davis tap water?
Sue,
Do you drink Davis tap water?
Sue,
Do you drink Davis tap water?
Is that question relevant?
Is that question relevant?
Is that question relevant?
Is that question relevant?
Anonymous 8:58 PM said…
Sue,
Do you drink Davis tap water?
For nine years my wife and I have drunk Davis tap water with absolutely no problem or concern. When Ron Glick got up and talked about the disgrace that Davis water is, I couldn’t help but wonder what alternate reality he is living in.
If he and you want to hold yourself prisoner to psychosomatic fears be my guest. Just don’t impose those fears on the rest of us who live life as it is presented to us.
8/17/08 8:58 PM
Anonymous 8:58 PM said…
Sue,
Do you drink Davis tap water?
For nine years my wife and I have drunk Davis tap water with absolutely no problem or concern. When Ron Glick got up and talked about the disgrace that Davis water is, I couldn’t help but wonder what alternate reality he is living in.
If he and you want to hold yourself prisoner to psychosomatic fears be my guest. Just don’t impose those fears on the rest of us who live life as it is presented to us.
8/17/08 8:58 PM
Anonymous 8:58 PM said…
Sue,
Do you drink Davis tap water?
For nine years my wife and I have drunk Davis tap water with absolutely no problem or concern. When Ron Glick got up and talked about the disgrace that Davis water is, I couldn’t help but wonder what alternate reality he is living in.
If he and you want to hold yourself prisoner to psychosomatic fears be my guest. Just don’t impose those fears on the rest of us who live life as it is presented to us.
8/17/08 8:58 PM
Anonymous 8:58 PM said…
Sue,
Do you drink Davis tap water?
For nine years my wife and I have drunk Davis tap water with absolutely no problem or concern. When Ron Glick got up and talked about the disgrace that Davis water is, I couldn’t help but wonder what alternate reality he is living in.
If he and you want to hold yourself prisoner to psychosomatic fears be my guest. Just don’t impose those fears on the rest of us who live life as it is presented to us.
8/17/08 8:58 PM
Personally, I have no problem with Davis tap water and yes, I drink it.
Personally, I have no problem with Davis tap water and yes, I drink it.
Personally, I have no problem with Davis tap water and yes, I drink it.
Personally, I have no problem with Davis tap water and yes, I drink it.
well…our “frog” is well boiled now…
Back in Septemeber of 2004, at the request of Martin Barnes, I tried to get a little recognition of the problem coming in a very sparsely attended talk (though I understand it appeared on public servic TV a time or two)…
Let me make a point-everyone should read all three water studies the City commisioned from 1987. They are at the 14th st branch library.
Start with Brown’s. There is no doubt that this first study was the beginning of the pipeline plan, that Conaway ranch was a target of the plan, and that WWTP EC factors, and the various contaminents highlighted in WESTYOST, were of no note in the beginning.
The sole reason for the pipeline as stated THEN was to increase QUANTITY of supply (it was felt the huge growth spurt being unleashed by the CC maj then would tap out the aquifer fairly quickly…surprise, it didn’t).
WESTYOST in 02 made clear the projected costs (many charts to check in its pages) and suggested
a combined use (well water will still be tapped under ANY existing plan) in Alt 5, which centered on using the Bryte “wheeling” plant with expansion. In fact that is the one clear “authorization” CC vote (for Alt 5) I find for any expenditure, negotiations and related activites, since 2002.
W. Sac in late 06 told us to forget that.
Yet the pipline marches on as if popping out of the next universe in line.
Tell all your neighbors and friends to read that stuff, now…pleeeez.
a couple other quick points…
The commentor who is so sure we use only a dry month “avg.” of 5.55 MGD of WWTP capacity now…hmmm. Funny thing is per capita Woodland WWTP use is more than our published figure. When checking WestYost I found unclear if students counted in the denominator of that division (per cap…). Since maybe 15,000 head off in summer (dry) months, the assumed projected use for largely year round resident additions is lowbiased (very helpful for the Village Peoples’ push in 05).
The CC appears to believe, having combined use plans, with some $mil or so spent every other year on drilling a new deep well, while a quarter $bil is to be spent on the pipe, that the later has already been authorized by votes past in conjunction with the wells spending…hmmm.
Last- Betty Racki, when I asked her on Sept 21 2004, when the CC would put a bond vote on the ballot said “neverr! It won’t pass. Instead the contractors will bring their own financier (loan) to the CC and they will pass that”
Presumably about 2 am at “our” very next CC meeting ….
well…our “frog” is well boiled now…
Back in Septemeber of 2004, at the request of Martin Barnes, I tried to get a little recognition of the problem coming in a very sparsely attended talk (though I understand it appeared on public servic TV a time or two)…
Let me make a point-everyone should read all three water studies the City commisioned from 1987. They are at the 14th st branch library.
Start with Brown’s. There is no doubt that this first study was the beginning of the pipeline plan, that Conaway ranch was a target of the plan, and that WWTP EC factors, and the various contaminents highlighted in WESTYOST, were of no note in the beginning.
The sole reason for the pipeline as stated THEN was to increase QUANTITY of supply (it was felt the huge growth spurt being unleashed by the CC maj then would tap out the aquifer fairly quickly…surprise, it didn’t).
WESTYOST in 02 made clear the projected costs (many charts to check in its pages) and suggested
a combined use (well water will still be tapped under ANY existing plan) in Alt 5, which centered on using the Bryte “wheeling” plant with expansion. In fact that is the one clear “authorization” CC vote (for Alt 5) I find for any expenditure, negotiations and related activites, since 2002.
W. Sac in late 06 told us to forget that.
Yet the pipline marches on as if popping out of the next universe in line.
Tell all your neighbors and friends to read that stuff, now…pleeeez.
a couple other quick points…
The commentor who is so sure we use only a dry month “avg.” of 5.55 MGD of WWTP capacity now…hmmm. Funny thing is per capita Woodland WWTP use is more than our published figure. When checking WestYost I found unclear if students counted in the denominator of that division (per cap…). Since maybe 15,000 head off in summer (dry) months, the assumed projected use for largely year round resident additions is lowbiased (very helpful for the Village Peoples’ push in 05).
The CC appears to believe, having combined use plans, with some $mil or so spent every other year on drilling a new deep well, while a quarter $bil is to be spent on the pipe, that the later has already been authorized by votes past in conjunction with the wells spending…hmmm.
Last- Betty Racki, when I asked her on Sept 21 2004, when the CC would put a bond vote on the ballot said “neverr! It won’t pass. Instead the contractors will bring their own financier (loan) to the CC and they will pass that”
Presumably about 2 am at “our” very next CC meeting ….
well…our “frog” is well boiled now…
Back in Septemeber of 2004, at the request of Martin Barnes, I tried to get a little recognition of the problem coming in a very sparsely attended talk (though I understand it appeared on public servic TV a time or two)…
Let me make a point-everyone should read all three water studies the City commisioned from 1987. They are at the 14th st branch library.
Start with Brown’s. There is no doubt that this first study was the beginning of the pipeline plan, that Conaway ranch was a target of the plan, and that WWTP EC factors, and the various contaminents highlighted in WESTYOST, were of no note in the beginning.
The sole reason for the pipeline as stated THEN was to increase QUANTITY of supply (it was felt the huge growth spurt being unleashed by the CC maj then would tap out the aquifer fairly quickly…surprise, it didn’t).
WESTYOST in 02 made clear the projected costs (many charts to check in its pages) and suggested
a combined use (well water will still be tapped under ANY existing plan) in Alt 5, which centered on using the Bryte “wheeling” plant with expansion. In fact that is the one clear “authorization” CC vote (for Alt 5) I find for any expenditure, negotiations and related activites, since 2002.
W. Sac in late 06 told us to forget that.
Yet the pipline marches on as if popping out of the next universe in line.
Tell all your neighbors and friends to read that stuff, now…pleeeez.
a couple other quick points…
The commentor who is so sure we use only a dry month “avg.” of 5.55 MGD of WWTP capacity now…hmmm. Funny thing is per capita Woodland WWTP use is more than our published figure. When checking WestYost I found unclear if students counted in the denominator of that division (per cap…). Since maybe 15,000 head off in summer (dry) months, the assumed projected use for largely year round resident additions is lowbiased (very helpful for the Village Peoples’ push in 05).
The CC appears to believe, having combined use plans, with some $mil or so spent every other year on drilling a new deep well, while a quarter $bil is to be spent on the pipe, that the later has already been authorized by votes past in conjunction with the wells spending…hmmm.
Last- Betty Racki, when I asked her on Sept 21 2004, when the CC would put a bond vote on the ballot said “neverr! It won’t pass. Instead the contractors will bring their own financier (loan) to the CC and they will pass that”
Presumably about 2 am at “our” very next CC meeting ….
well…our “frog” is well boiled now…
Back in Septemeber of 2004, at the request of Martin Barnes, I tried to get a little recognition of the problem coming in a very sparsely attended talk (though I understand it appeared on public servic TV a time or two)…
Let me make a point-everyone should read all three water studies the City commisioned from 1987. They are at the 14th st branch library.
Start with Brown’s. There is no doubt that this first study was the beginning of the pipeline plan, that Conaway ranch was a target of the plan, and that WWTP EC factors, and the various contaminents highlighted in WESTYOST, were of no note in the beginning.
The sole reason for the pipeline as stated THEN was to increase QUANTITY of supply (it was felt the huge growth spurt being unleashed by the CC maj then would tap out the aquifer fairly quickly…surprise, it didn’t).
WESTYOST in 02 made clear the projected costs (many charts to check in its pages) and suggested
a combined use (well water will still be tapped under ANY existing plan) in Alt 5, which centered on using the Bryte “wheeling” plant with expansion. In fact that is the one clear “authorization” CC vote (for Alt 5) I find for any expenditure, negotiations and related activites, since 2002.
W. Sac in late 06 told us to forget that.
Yet the pipline marches on as if popping out of the next universe in line.
Tell all your neighbors and friends to read that stuff, now…pleeeez.
a couple other quick points…
The commentor who is so sure we use only a dry month “avg.” of 5.55 MGD of WWTP capacity now…hmmm. Funny thing is per capita Woodland WWTP use is more than our published figure. When checking WestYost I found unclear if students counted in the denominator of that division (per cap…). Since maybe 15,000 head off in summer (dry) months, the assumed projected use for largely year round resident additions is lowbiased (very helpful for the Village Peoples’ push in 05).
The CC appears to believe, having combined use plans, with some $mil or so spent every other year on drilling a new deep well, while a quarter $bil is to be spent on the pipe, that the later has already been authorized by votes past in conjunction with the wells spending…hmmm.
Last- Betty Racki, when I asked her on Sept 21 2004, when the CC would put a bond vote on the ballot said “neverr! It won’t pass. Instead the contractors will bring their own financier (loan) to the CC and they will pass that”
Presumably about 2 am at “our” very next CC meeting ….
I’m tired of hearing about Sue’s experts, some who apparently live here in town, but are reluctant to get involved. This indicates to me that it is just not that big of a deal for them. Or it could be that they just don’t want to appear that they are aligned with Sue politically.
The bottom line is that Sue thinks that we can’t afford it and just wants to put it off until after the waste water treatment plant is paid for. Isn’t that what she keeps saying?
I think the focus should be on how to make it happen financially. We shouldn’t just rely on our well-water. I drink it and think it tastes just fine and I worry about the cost impacting my own precarious finances. Would it cost us less for waste water treatment if some portion of the water we used was of a higher quality?
Sue, we could raise some funds if we had a real estate transfer tax, don’t you think?
I’m tired of hearing about Sue’s experts, some who apparently live here in town, but are reluctant to get involved. This indicates to me that it is just not that big of a deal for them. Or it could be that they just don’t want to appear that they are aligned with Sue politically.
The bottom line is that Sue thinks that we can’t afford it and just wants to put it off until after the waste water treatment plant is paid for. Isn’t that what she keeps saying?
I think the focus should be on how to make it happen financially. We shouldn’t just rely on our well-water. I drink it and think it tastes just fine and I worry about the cost impacting my own precarious finances. Would it cost us less for waste water treatment if some portion of the water we used was of a higher quality?
Sue, we could raise some funds if we had a real estate transfer tax, don’t you think?
I’m tired of hearing about Sue’s experts, some who apparently live here in town, but are reluctant to get involved. This indicates to me that it is just not that big of a deal for them. Or it could be that they just don’t want to appear that they are aligned with Sue politically.
The bottom line is that Sue thinks that we can’t afford it and just wants to put it off until after the waste water treatment plant is paid for. Isn’t that what she keeps saying?
I think the focus should be on how to make it happen financially. We shouldn’t just rely on our well-water. I drink it and think it tastes just fine and I worry about the cost impacting my own precarious finances. Would it cost us less for waste water treatment if some portion of the water we used was of a higher quality?
Sue, we could raise some funds if we had a real estate transfer tax, don’t you think?
I’m tired of hearing about Sue’s experts, some who apparently live here in town, but are reluctant to get involved. This indicates to me that it is just not that big of a deal for them. Or it could be that they just don’t want to appear that they are aligned with Sue politically.
The bottom line is that Sue thinks that we can’t afford it and just wants to put it off until after the waste water treatment plant is paid for. Isn’t that what she keeps saying?
I think the focus should be on how to make it happen financially. We shouldn’t just rely on our well-water. I drink it and think it tastes just fine and I worry about the cost impacting my own precarious finances. Would it cost us less for waste water treatment if some portion of the water we used was of a higher quality?
Sue, we could raise some funds if we had a real estate transfer tax, don’t you think?
“I think the focus should be on how to make it happen financially.”
And how do you propose doing that? Higher taxes? What you don’t seem to realize is just how much of an increase in water/sewer rates we will be facing. If my water bill just jumped by 250% in one year, think about the cost if that is done each year for the next ten years. Trust me, you will be paying essentially “ground rent” on top of your mortgage payment. Or your water/sewer rate may end up more costly than your mortgage payment. Many of us will go belly up financially at that high a cost increase.
“I think the focus should be on how to make it happen financially.”
And how do you propose doing that? Higher taxes? What you don’t seem to realize is just how much of an increase in water/sewer rates we will be facing. If my water bill just jumped by 250% in one year, think about the cost if that is done each year for the next ten years. Trust me, you will be paying essentially “ground rent” on top of your mortgage payment. Or your water/sewer rate may end up more costly than your mortgage payment. Many of us will go belly up financially at that high a cost increase.
“I think the focus should be on how to make it happen financially.”
And how do you propose doing that? Higher taxes? What you don’t seem to realize is just how much of an increase in water/sewer rates we will be facing. If my water bill just jumped by 250% in one year, think about the cost if that is done each year for the next ten years. Trust me, you will be paying essentially “ground rent” on top of your mortgage payment. Or your water/sewer rate may end up more costly than your mortgage payment. Many of us will go belly up financially at that high a cost increase.
“I think the focus should be on how to make it happen financially.”
And how do you propose doing that? Higher taxes? What you don’t seem to realize is just how much of an increase in water/sewer rates we will be facing. If my water bill just jumped by 250% in one year, think about the cost if that is done each year for the next ten years. Trust me, you will be paying essentially “ground rent” on top of your mortgage payment. Or your water/sewer rate may end up more costly than your mortgage payment. Many of us will go belly up financially at that high a cost increase.
Well, I guess the discussion has to start somewhere. Any other ideas?
Well, I guess the discussion has to start somewhere. Any other ideas?
Well, I guess the discussion has to start somewhere. Any other ideas?
Well, I guess the discussion has to start somewhere. Any other ideas?