by Councilmember Stephen Souza and Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza –
by Councilmember Stephen Souza and Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza – Davis operates its own water and wastewater utilities. Although a big responsibility, it affords our community the flexibility to control our destiny, manage systems that support our environmental and conservation values, and force costs down at every opportunity.
Davis is one of very few California cities to rely entirely on groundwater for year-round water supply. After leaving our homes, the water we use is sent to the city’s wastewater treatment plant before being released to Willow Slough Bypass and 400 acres of wetlands created by the city, and ultimately into the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem.
This process is accomplished through a patchwork system of interdependent parts, some that are nearing or have exceeded their useful life. Our oldest wells need costly repairs, and pipes must be replaced. Our wells have experienced an average useful life of 31 years, and some are more than 50 years old.
Our integrated system of groundwater aquifers for source water and current wastewater treatment pond systems have served us well. They also have kept our water utility rates very low. Now, however, we must move to modern systems that will provide us with reliable and secure good quality water into the future.
Community surveys repeatedly demonstrate a strong dissatisfaction with our water’s hardness and its impact on taste and plumbing. Public health standards for total dissolved solids, arsenic, nitrates, magnesium, chromium and selenium require, or threaten to require, increased treatment on the front end for drinking and the back end for discharge.
Even if quality weren’t an issue, our 65,000 residents threaten to exhaust available groundwater resources. Studies establish that our aquifer alone cannot support the long-term needs of Davis and UC Davis. Limits on our extraction have been imposed, and we are coming up against them.
Piecemeal fixes are expensive and unending as we maintain 22 wells across the city and a dated wastewater plant. And ultimately, a 2017 wastewater discharge permit requirement imposed by the state’s Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that we must act.
While we might wish that aggressive water conservation could solve our water supply problem, it will do nothing to help us meet the stringent wastewater discharge requirements under the 2017 permit. Surprising to many, the water we are pumping from the ground today isn’t fit for discharge to our wetlands and the Bay-Delta – even before it’s used! This is because aquatic life breath the water, while we merely drink it. Think of a swimming pool with chlorine. We can swim in it, and even drink it, but aquatic life that breathe it would perish quickly.
The good news is that our need for water supply and wastewater solutions was recognized more than two decades ago. UC Davis’ brightest minds in wastewater and local system experts have helped us design a creative and lowest-possible-cost (albeit $100 million to build) set of improvements to our existing wastewater treatment plant.
A new, reliable and high-quality supply is critical to reducing long-term costs for wastewater treatment, in that higher-quality water requires less wastewater treatment. Studies in support of a new system have been underway for more than two decades. Twenty-nine alternatives were studied by Davis, Woodland and UC Davis. All were far less desirable for reasons of cost and or environmental impact than the path we are pursuing.
In 2009, our City Council partnered with the city of Woodland and UC Davis to establish the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) to plan for a new water supply for both communities. The relatively straightforward pieces of the agency’s work include creating an environmentally sensitive diversion facility for Sacramento River water, treating the water for drinking, and delivering the water to Woodland and Davis.
Before proceeding, the new Woodland-Davis supply project must obtain Sacramento River water rights for both winter water and summer water. For a new winter supply, our Yolo forebears applied for a water right in 1994 that Woodland and Davis may perfect, and the Clean Water Agency is completing the permitting process for this winter water right.
Summer water, however, is scarce, and we use three times more water in summer than in winter. Acquiring a right to summer water presents a huge challenge for the WDCWA. This is California, where water rights are the real gold – where “whiskey’s for drinkin’ and water’s for fightin’. Thus, the crux issue for Davis’ modern waterworks is summer water – July through August. This water will supplement limited summer pumping from perhaps five wells that Davis will keep in operation.
There is a summer supply close and high in quality that Davis has been watching for years – the rights associated with the 17,000 acre Conaway Ranch adjacent to the Yolo Bypass and Sacramento River. It’s senior rights with a priority of 1919 to Sacramento River water can provide a critical piece for our new system. Davis has sought this water for years, but it’s never been offered for sale, or we haven’t been poised for the purchase. That has changed.
The Water Agency has the opportunity to buy a secure quantity of 10,000 acre-feet of Conaway Ranch summer water outright. With Conaway’s water available, and the WDCWA in place, a perfect opportunity is presented to acquire our best possible source of high quality local summer water. If the pending Clean Water Agency deal with Conaway is approved, Davis won’t be wondering if our supply is secure or if the price will increase.
The annual payments toward the 10,000 acre-feet will also purchase needed land rights for a modern water supply intake, treatment plant, and pipelines. Total payments for the water and land rights would total $79 million. Water supply project costs are split 54 percent Woodland, 46 percent Davis. The $36.5 million for this purchase from Davis would be paid with annual payments starting at $1.2 million, increasing two percent per year for 24 years. After that, summer water purchase payments end. We won’t begin our payments or use until 2016 since it will take until then to get the diversion and conveyance facilities constructed. We also negotiated for the right to pay early so we can refinance and or stretch out our payments if desired.
Importantly, the possible Davis-Woodland water rights purchase also guarantees permanent control by a Yolo County party of the vast majority of Conaway Ranch’s valuable summer water once our use begins. That’s a benefit Davis and Woodland are bringing home for all Yoloans — in perpetuity.
Just as new winter and summer supplies are critical, they also must be enduring. Davis must embrace a still more conservation-minded water ethic to avoid future costs and remain a good steward of our environment. Aggressive water savings and creative new systems are fundamental to the sustainability of our water supply.
Conservation indoors and especially outdoors in the summer, is essential. Our two-tier pricing needs to be still more use-sensitive to discourage overwatering and ensure that ratepayers have the ability to keep their bills low. Incentives must encourage landscape conversions that fit our Central Valley climate.
For our parks and public landscape, the city can use lower-quality well water and reused wastewater to stretch our precious summer supply. We must begin to recharge our underground basin to store surplus winter water for the summers. Davis is in the process of renewing its state-mandated Urban Water Management Plan, required by June 2011, and that public process will provide a key opportunity to refine our conservation plans.
Aggressive conservation, a new high-quality and reliable local surface water supply, reduced dependence on an over-tapped and aging groundwater system, and a minimal level of wastewater treatment plant upgrades will keep Davis’ water and sewer rates as low as possible, stable and easily under statewide averages.
What does that really mean? In anticipation of increased capital costs, we have gradually increased wastewater rates for the past eight years. As a result, “Sanitary Sewer” increases on our Davis Services Bill are predicted to be two percent per year over the next 10 years. Increases for water use on our bills will be steeper. Our current average residential bill of about $40 per month is approximately half the statewide average. Assuming current demand levels, our average is projected to climb to $90 per month by 2020, when the statewide average is predicted to be $100 per month. This news isn’t great, but without a new system we delay the inevitable and costs will increase.
The transformation of Davis’ water utility is decades in the making, and will serve us well for decades to come. Through dedicated city staff work, countless studies, consulting with university experts, and a cost-conscious City Council, Davis is making the right moves to deliver a new system that brings us high quality water from the Sacramento River, uses that water wisely, and better protects our city wetlands and the fragile delta ecosystem when discharged.
Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza are the Davis City Council members who serve on the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency Joint Powers Agency. Since 2009, the agency has been formally charged by both cities with acquiring water rights and delivering a new supply of water to their residents by 2017. All documents on the pending water agreement are
located on the WDCWA’s webs site.
Key thing here is the meeting tomorrow at 7 pm at the Council Chambers, also guest commentary by Souza/ Krovoza on the Water issue, there will be a Q&A and the public should come if they are around.
“…IF THEY ARE AROUND” are the key words here. Many of us will be out of town. The timing right before the holidays/short time frame for approving this huge/expensive/important deal is very disappointing, to say the least…
But this seems typical of our local gov’t – if anything is controversial, rush it through to minimize public input…
Neither the timing nor the time for comment are as hoped or planned. That said, Stephen Souza and I, at every turn on this, have been doing all we can to brief our colleagues, and now the public. We ran our Op-Ed before the details could be public to begin consideration and public education as soon as feasible. Now we have updated our Op-Ed and we appreciate David posting it pronto. We have organized a public Q&A for Monday. Sooner just wasn’t possible. We’ll keep doing all we can. Thank you to all for reading our piece. The links at the start to city and CWA materials should be most informative. Thanks you to many who have sent me comments (largely positive) privately. And I look forward to all constructive critiques and I have read all Vanguard comments on the posts.
Joe: While I appreciate your efforts, is there a way to wait until January for the water vote? The whole process both at the county and city level feels rushed. I understand this has been a 20 year process, but it has like a hurry-up/ wait dynamic.
I am going cross-eyed looking for the “support for fluoridation” section of the agreement. Some of the documents are not computer searchable. Anyone know where that part is or who would know where it is?
What is the story on why this is so rushed. Did Ts…… set a deadline, and–if so–why are we accepting it?
I don’t find anything about fluoride or fluoridation anywhere in the 208 page agreement. I think most people will find the 12-page staff summary sufficient, and won’t find much of interest in the remainder. I am curious what questions anyone here has that would necessitate waiting until January to act on this.
I found it! The wording in the Powerpoint presentation at the Board of Supervisors meeting and in the Yolo County Press release was so vague about “support of fluoridation” that I needed to find the exact language.
Here it is:
“5. Fluoridation. Following its acquisition by Tri-City, CPG will support the inclusion of equipment necessary to allow for the provision of water fluoridation in the design and construction of the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project.”
I found this at http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=1309. It is listed as “Supporting Document 3.04A” and described as “For Public Review 12/16/10 Draft Agreement Between the County of Yolo and Tri-City Water and Farm, LLC Regarding Conaway Ranch.” I wonder how I can get the not draft version and how it will differ from the draft.
If the “support” takes the form of funding, then Davis loses an exemption to the state law requiring that water be fluoridated. (See http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/116409-116415.html for the text of “California Health and Safety Code – Section 116409-116415 :: Article 3.5. Fluoridation Of Drinking Water” (Leginfo is down for maintenance until the 20th, so we have to rely on this unofficial copy in the meantime.)
Sorry, that direct link to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors meeting of Dec 17, 2010 doesn’t work. You need to go here http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=1309 , then click on the word “Agenda” for the Dec 17th meeting, then click on Supporting Document 3.04A.
The wording “5. Fluoridation. Following its acquisition by Tri-City, CPG will support the inclusion of equipment necessary to allow for the provision of water fluoridation in the design and construction of the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project.” is still pretty vague and needs clarification. Until then I must assume it means direct or indirect providing of funding.
Babara, Yes, the language only exists in the County agreement. This issue was never brought up in the context of the CWA/Woodland/Davis agreements and it’s not in them. City and CWA staff are looking into this. In general, I believe the cities decide on this issue. I hope we know more tomorrow night. Thanks for raising this. My view is that the agreements should be neutral on this issue and the CWA/Woodland/Davis agreements are. These agreements are about acquiring water rights in perpetuity for the cities, and the land needed for facilities related to such on the Conaway Ranch. The level of water treatment, etc. just isn’t part of this set of negotiations.
David, I believe this should move forward deliberately. Everything is out there. Tomorrow night will be good – though not perfect, as I wish it could be. If there are key reasons to delay, we’ll consider the pros and cons of such. I have heard of multiple deadlines during this process, several of which have passed. So, honestly, I don’t know what’s real and what’s not. If there are issues, I’d rather spot them sooner rather than later. I am getting excellent comments from some Davis experts and I am handling those with staff. I’ll continue to watch for more on all forums related to this. I am encouraging those who have written to me to come tomorrow. I’ll send what I believe is the best project summary document to you now. I am not sure how to post it here. Perhaps you can add it to all of this. Thanks.
CWA staff report: [url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/12-21-10_JPA_MTG-Packet-6_SR_Agrmts-Reso.pdf[/url]
City of Davis staff report: [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/packet.cfm?agenda=F1D2616F-1143-EEBD-B044BCD754F05B45[/url]
…all this at the great risk of discouraging good people from applying for the Council vacancy if they see what they’ll be reading lots of. &:~) More seriously, I believe the staff work on this in Woodland, in Davis, and at the CWA, has been outstanding. All comments and questions welcome.
David: On your questions regarding the urgency of this, I believe that Tsakopoulos’ attorney stated at the Yolo board meeting that his agreement to purchase the interest in the Conaway Ranch expired at the end of the year, and that essentially a number of things needed to occur for Tsakopoulos to purchase the interest. I suspect that he and/or the financing or investment money behind him are looking for assurances that they’ll be able to generate the money necessary to make the purchase profitable. I know I would. Yolo supporting the sale of the easements to the state, the cities entering into an agreement to buy some of the water, and Metropolitan indicating in their press release that they are working to purchase additional water from Tsakopoulos. I’m curious if you or anyone else knows whether Tsakopoulos’ attorney could get disbarred if the statement he made was an outright lie?
Joe: I have included the relevant text of the state law below. Once that equipment is in place, Davis loses an exemption. Davis should not sign its agreement until the county takes out the fluoridation clause.
Comment is too long, so I will break up the text of the law into two or more comments.
=====================
116415. (a) (1) A public water system is not required to fluoridate
pursuant to Section 116410, or the regulations adopted thereunder by
the department, in any of the following situations:
(A) If the public water system is listed on the schedule to
implement a fluoridation program pursuant to paragraph (4) of
subdivision (b) of Section 116410 and funds are not offered pursuant
to a binding contractual offer to the public water system sufficient
to pay the capital and associated costs from any outside source. As
used in this section, “outside source” means a source other than the
system’s ratepayers, shareholders, local taxpayers, bondholders, or
any fees or charges levied by the water system.
(B) If the public water system has been offered pursuant to a
binding contractual offer the capital and associated funds necessary
for fluoridation as set forth in subparagraph (A) and has completed
the installation of a fluoridation system, however, in any given
fiscal year (July 1-June 30, inclusive) funding is not available to
the public water system sufficient to pay the noncapital operation
and maintenance costs described in subdivision (g) from any outside
source other than the system’s ratepayers, shareholders, local
taxpayers, bondholders, or any fees or charges levied by the water
system. A binding contractual offer to provide funds for 12 months,
without regard to fiscal year, of noncapital operation and
maintenance costs shall render a water system unqualified for an
exemption under this subparagraph for that year.
(C) If the funding provided by an outside source for capital and
associated costs is depleted prior to completion of the installation
of a fluoridation system and funds sufficient to complete the
installation have not been offered pursuant to a binding contractual
offer to the public water system by an outside source. In the event
of a disagreement between the public water system and an outside
funding source about the reasonableness of additional capital and
associated costs, in order to qualify for an exemption under this
subparagraph the costs overruns must be found to be reasonable by a
registered civil engineer recognized or employed by the department
who is familiar with the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of fluoridation systems.
(2) Each year the department shall prepare and distribute a list
of those water systems that do not qualify for exemption under this
section from the fluoridation requirements of Section 116410. This
list shall include water systems that have been offered, have
received, or are expected to receive, sufficient funding for capital
and associated costs so as to not qualify for exemption under
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), and have either (A) been offered
or have received, or anticipate receiving, sufficient noncapital
maintenance and operation funding pursuant to subdivision (g), or (B)
have not yet completed the installation of a fluoridation system, so
text continued:
that they do not qualify for exemption under subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (1).
(3) Any water system that has been offered pursuant to a binding
contractual offer the funds necessary for fluoridation as set forth
in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), and is not included in the list
pursuant to paragraph (2), may elect to exercise the option not to
fluoridate during the following fiscal year pursuant to subparagraph
(B) of paragraph (1) by so notifying the department by certified mail
on or before June 1.
(4) The permit issued by the department for a public water system
that is scheduled to implement fluoridation pursuant to paragraph (4)
of subdivision (b) of Section 116410 shall specify whether it is
required to fluoridate pursuant to Section 116410, or whether it has
been granted an exemption pursuant to either subparagraph (A) or
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1).
(b) The department shall enforce Section 116410 and this section,
and all regulations adopted pursuant to these sections, unless
delegated pursuant to a local primary agreement.
(c) If the owner or operator of any public water system subject to
Section 116410 fails, or refuses, to comply with any regulations
adopted pursuant to Section 116410, or any order of the department
implementing these regulations, the Attorney General shall, upon the
request of the department, institute mandamus proceedings, or other
appropriate proceedings, in order to compel compliance with the
order, rule, or regulation. This remedy shall be in addition to all
other authorized remedies or sanctions.
(d) Neither this section nor Section 116410 shall supersede
subdivision (b) of Section 116410.
(e) The department shall seek all sources of funding for
enforcement of the standards and capital cost requirements
established pursuant to this section and Section 116410, including,
but not limited to, all of the following:
(1) Federal block grants.
(2) Donations from private foundations.
Expenditures from governmental sources shall be subject to
specific appropriation by the Legislature for these purposes.
(f) A public water system with less than 10,000 service
connections may elect to comply with the standards, compliance
requirements, and regulations for fluoridation established pursuant
to this section and Section 116410.
(g) Costs, other than capital costs, incurred in complying with
this section and Section 116410, including regulations adopted
pursuant to those sections, may be paid from federal grants, or
donations from private foundations, for these purposes. Each public
water system that will incur costs, other than capitalization costs,
as a result of compliance with this section and Section 116410, shall
provide an estimate to the department of the anticipated total
annual operations and maintenance costs related to fluoridation
treatment by January 1 of each year.
(h) A public water system subject to the jurisdiction of the
Public Utilities Commission shall be entitled to recover from its
customers all of its capital and associated costs, and all of its
operation and maintenance expenses associated with compliance with
this section and Section 116410. The Public Utilities Commission
shall approve rate increases for an owner or operator of a public
water system that is subject to its jurisdiction within 45 days of
the filing of an application or an advice letter, in accordance with
the commission’s requirements, showing in reasonable detail the
amount of additional revenue required to recover the foregoing
capital and associated costs, and operation and maintenance expenses.
What genius talked Ts—– into making this generous offer? Or did he make it out of the goodness of his heart?