Our biggest concern, up until last week, was that not enough people in this community knew that water rates would be tripling. That is no longer the case and I will extend appreciation to the Davis Enterprise for their coverage of the issue, particularly Crystal Lee’s story on the Prop 218 process and Jonathan Edwards’ coverage of the water rates.
However, we remain concerned about the implications of these water rate increases. I have been called irresponsible here for my stance on water. I will not shy away from it, however. The problem that I see is that water is not the only crisis we face and when put against issues such as the city budget and education, as well as county social services, I would not rank the water issue among the highest.
I am sorry but there is only so much money to go around and so I would like to look at alternatives to the water issue.
Despite my appreciation for the Enterprise’s belated coverage of the water issue, I am concerned that their current article, an interview of Interim Public Works Director Bob Clarke, is one-sided and offers opinions as facts, and may get things wrong.
In fairness, perhaps the Enterprise will follow this article up with the other side of the story, with someone like Councilmember Sue Greenwald.
The fight really is over this piece: “Project leaders, which include City Council members from Davis and Woodland, say the cities’ groundwater resource is unsustainable in terms of quality, supply and compliance with state and federal regulations. They say noncompliance is illegal and Davis can be fined more than $160 million, which is about how much it would cost the city to complete the project. Others argue the city should fight the requirements, given the high cost of water projects and the bad economic times.”
The Enterprise continues, “Ratepayers have an important decision before them — support the Clean Water project and take on the cost of the investment, or protest and accept the risk of incurring fines.”
The real question is whether it is possible for the city to put off the project, given the economic times and whether they can avoid fines.
Bob Clarke writes, “In 2007, Davis adopted an environmental impact report that concluded using surface water from the Sacramento River as the best alternative.”
Part of the problem I have had is that for the most part, the same people who have advised the city are industry people who stand to gain from the project itself.
The one good thing that Bob Clarke pointed out is that the current drinking water is safe.
He responds, “We take extreme measures to provide safe drinking water that meets all state and federal water quality regulations. The city routinely tests the groundwater for biological, inorganic, organic and radioactive constituents. “
The need for the water project is driven instead by “increasingly strict water quality requirements” which are set to go up in 2016.
He argues, “Compared to other Central Valley communities, we are behind the curve.”
He adds, “We are on track for project completion in 2016. The longer we wait, the higher the costs for project construction and the greater the risk of potential fines for noncompliance with the Clean Water Act. The higher quality river water will also help the city meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s waste discharge requirements.”
Furthermore, if we do not complete the project now, he argues, “We would not be able to meet our wastewater discharge permit requirements that take effect in 2017, subjecting the city to potentially expensive fines. The Regional Water Quality Control Board calculates fines based on a number of different factors, including minimum fines per violation, per day; fines assessed per gallon of illegal discharge; and economic benefit determinations whereby fines can be set at a level to discourage agencies from delaying improvements. This last factor essentially gives the board the ability to fine an agency an amount 10 percent greater than any savings the agency would realize by not pursuing improvements. In our case, this could be in excess of $160 million.”
He adds, “While fines of this magnitude are not typically levied, the threat of such high fines is intended as a deterrent and to encourage compliance. Attempts to convince the board that fines should not be imposed or to overturn our permit requirements are not likely to be successful. There has been one successful challenge to the board’s permitting authority that involved the City of Tracy. In this case there were a number of unique circumstances that would not apply to the City of Davis’ situation.”
“Alternatively, in a recent case in Southern California, the Regional Board documented its authority to fine an agency for violations in excess of $1 billion. Ultimately, the board did not assess fines to the full extent, but the case demonstrates the legal authority of the board to issue high enough fines that compliance is the least costly alternative. The bottom line: We need to do the project now to improve the quality and reliability of our drinking water and to avoid potentially significant fines for non-compliance on our waste discharge permit.”
Where I strongly believe that Mr. Clarke is not telling truth is on this answer. He is asked, “Does the project provide all Davis residents with river water?”
He responds, “It will provide river water to all of Davis’ customers almost all of the time.”
We know this is not true in the slightest. Not all of Davis residents will get river water. Some people will get deep well water during the summer and no river water at all. That was the point of the memo that we were tipped off to a few months ago.
Now he acknowledges some of this, “Houses nearest the wells will receive more well than surface water during peak times.”
He argues that we will not notice the difference, “Because our deep well water has a similar hardness to river water, most people probably won’t notice a difference.”
That is an interesting sleight-of-hand trick. The truth is, as many as half of the people in Davis will be on well water for at least half the year if not more, depending on how much rain and snow accumulate in California.
Sue Greenwald responds, “I’m astonished by the misleading statements in this article. I don’t know who is responsible, but citizens deserve honest information. What I am reading constitutes scare tactics.”
She continues, “To say that the city “can” be fined $160 million is highly misleading. The WRCB is in the process of revisiting salinity management in the Delta.” And then adds, “The courts have weighed in loud and clear that they want the board to consider economic effects on cities when setting salinity effluent limits. There is a very good chance that salinity requirements will be moderated. There will be plenty of room for negotiation with the WRCB if the surface water project is postponed.”
Responding to this statement by Bob Clarke, ”Attempts to convince the board that fines should not be imposed or to overturn our permit requirements are not likely to be successful”.
She responds, “This statement has no basis in fact. New salinity guidelines will be in place as [early] as the end of this year. There would be plenty time and room for negotiation.”
In summary, we are concerned with the costs of this project and fear this will take money away from other potentially more highly prioritized spending.
Second, we believe the issue of fines might be overstated and that the we should pursue the possibility of waiving or delaying the new requirements, at least five years until 2021. That will enable us to get out of the economic mess we are in and build in some of the funding.
Third, we believe the issue of parity in water quality is a concern and that Mr. Clarke is understating the amount of well water we will need in the summer and more importantly understating the differences in quality.
There is a fourth problem that is not even addressed here, which is the impacts on the delta and the future of the Sacramento River as a water supply source. I think it is entirely possible that we are acquiring a water source that may become less reliable as time goes on.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Those of us who were around during the Measure X/Covell Village campaign remember the false/misleading statements about fines offered as one of several desperate “scare tactics”. Severe fines now, as they were then with regard to legislative “mandates” for city growth, are politically untenable, especially in these economic times. The core Council support for Whitcombe’s Covell Village project,Saylor and Souza who coincidentally were the core cheerleaders for this water project for the past decade, demonstrated, IMO, that they have little reluctance to skirting dangerously close to a breach of the public trust when their agendas are at stake. We have also witnessed public stonewalling and attempts to limit transparency of this project by the past head of the Davis Public Works Dept. There has certainly been improvement in this regard under the new head of the Davis PWD but the misleading statements quoted above should be viewed with concern as to the real amount of change in the “culture” of the Davis Public Works Dept.
Davis could pay for its share of the project by charging developers for the privilege of building the homes they want to build.
I also think the city would be better served if water system proponents would quit using the “wastewater discharge violation” argument when discussing the need for the JPA water project. It is a blatent scare tactic as Sue Greenwald has repeatedly pointed out and it invites criticism of all future information coming out of city hall as being potentially untrue.
The fact is that the city could very easily come into compliance with wastewater discharge requirements pertaining to salinity by eliminating whole house water softening and allowing its use only on hot water lines where it is really needed. Combined with requiring all softeners to use totalizers instead of timers (as all new softeners are now required to use by state law), this could eliminate up to 6,000,000 pounds per year of salt from entering our wastewater treatment system and the excess salinity problem in our wastewater effluent is solved.
Continued allowed use of softeners as is currently practiced by many residents is functionally nothing more than a direct city subsidy to Culligan to pollute our wastewater stream. Elimination of the huge amounts of excess softening (which greatly increases the corrosivity of the post-softened water) could also potentially eliminate the excess copper in our wastewater stream which is also currently mandated by the Regional Water Quality Board although more investigation of the copper source in our wastewater needs to be made.
The other major “mineral” problem in our wastewater possibly leading to future violations that is not addressable with the planned wastewater treatment plant upgrades is selenium. I believe this problem could also be relatively inexpensively solved by judiciously operation of the City’s “high selenium” groundwater pumps only during periods of very high flow and demand.
Unfortunately, none of these options were quantitatively evaluated by the City prior to embarking on the massive JPA project.
That said, I believe there is still one good reason for the City to pursue the water project and that is to ensure the City has an adequate alternative, long term water source if intermediate aquifer levels continue to drop and our intermediate depth groundwater wells start coming off line. At that point, there may very well be increased restrictions on deep aquifer pumping. If that came to pass as is anticipated at some point in the future (albeit perhaps decades) Davis would start running dry and would be forced to implement draconian water conservation measures possibly even with mandatory rationing. Say goodby to all lawns in Davis if that ever came to pass.
[i]In summary, we are concerned with the costs of this project and fear this will take money away from other potentially more highly prioritized spending.[/i]
Your logic is that voters will vote against school taxes because their utility bills are going up. If those costs are phased in gradually, as proposed by staff, the impact on future tax measures is reduced. Can you show me a correlation between utility costs and taxpayer support of school measures? My guess is you’ll find that higher-income, educated, liberal communities support school measures, and others don’t.
Keep in mind that Davis water rates are much lower than the state average right now. People who move here (in part because of the school district) have very likely paid much higher water rates elsewhere. Sticker shock is going to be mostly among long-time, older, and less-affluent residents. That is why the rate structure is very important. And that is why the city is exploring reduced rates for some citizens.
[i]Second, we believe the issue of fines might be overstated and that we should pursue the possibility of waiving or delaying the new requirements, at least five years until 2021. That will enable us to get out of the economic mess we are in and build in some of the funding.[/i]
You believe the city’s budget situation is going to improve in five years? Please see all your previous articles about unfunded liabilities and long-term employee compensation.
Problem is, I’m sure you’ll oppose it then, too. You’ve opposed every aspect of this water project, every step of the way, using a series of reasons. The water project will never be a priority for you. There will always be competing interests.
[i]Third, we believe the issue of parity in water quality is a concern and that Mr. Clarke is understating the amount of well water we will need in the summer and more importantly understating the differences in quality.[/i]
So nobody should get surface water, because everybody won’t? Got it. Perhaps you should argue instead for expedited expansion of the surface water distribution to all parts of the city. You are right about the latter point: difference in water quality is the whole point of this project.
[i]There is a fourth problem that is not even addressed here, which is the impacts on the delta and the future of the Sacramento River as a water supply source. I think it is entirely possible that we are acquiring a water source that may become less reliable as time goes on.[/i]
You continue to post these arguments. The city/JWPA has acquired senior water rights. The impact on the delta of continuing to use high-salinity ground water is the whole point of the water quality standards. It is also possible, as Alan Pryor has noted, that the ground water supplies might become “less reliable as time goes on.”
Maybe it’s my professional history working in hydrology, but I see the big issues here as overdraft of groundwater and water quality. I tend to view water supply as a physical world problem from a long term perspective of 20, 50 and 100 years. The permanent loss of aquifer capacity from continual groundwater overdraft is irresponsible yet goes on as we speak because of our collective inability to manage surface water for political reasons. If you think raising taxes is hard, try regulating groundwater.
Aquifer capacity, once lost, is gone forever and most of us have no idea what that means or what we have actually lost. I was struck by Clark’s comments in the Enterprise that our “solution” is to continue to drill ever deeper wells, down to 2,000 feet! I view aquifer capacity as a water savings account that could be available during severe drought. We don’t use it that way, rather, we use our aquifers as an ATM for cheap, unregulated, easy money. Reliance on groundwater is sustainable in areas of the world where, on average, the aquifer is replenished on an annual basis. Paradoxically (or logically), regions that have that much annual rainfall have no reliance on groundwater because surface water is so much more available and cheaper to use. On the other hand, here in California and in most of the southwest U.S., where surface supply is seasonal and less dependable, we use groundwater like there is no tomorrow and as if it is a never-ending resource.
I don’t LIKE the idea of paying more for water, but paying three times as much for water and having a chance at letting our groundwater recover for the next really intense drought like the the one we experienced in 1976-77 or even the prolonged one in 1987-92 is worth every penny. Surface supply opens the door to groundwater conservation and that is, in my opinion, worth far more than the increased costs.
Apartment dwellers , need to be addressed by this council , they pay only pennies on the dollar .
To Don Shor and Dave Hart: Nicely said.
[quote]”The courts have weighed in loud and clear that they want the board to consider economic effects on cities when setting salinity effluent limits. There is a very good chance that salinity requirements will be moderated. There will be plenty of room for negotiation with the WRCB if the surface water project is postponed.”
[/quote]
The courts weighed in on the Tracy decision, and merely said that cost is one factor that must be considered by the SWRB. But that is essentially all the courts said. The courts did not say the SWRB is going to have to moderate its salinity requirements or that there will be plenty of room for negotiation. That is pure speculation, unless someone can directly quote a representative that is willing to say the SWRB will moderate salinity requirements and there is plenty of room for negotiation.
The Public Works Director from Woodland addressed this very issue. His office sat down with the SWRB and asked those very questions. The message that was given loud and clear is that the SWRB is not backing down from the new salinity requirements. To hope that they will, despite their words to the contrary, is not based on any evidence, and amounts to wishful thinking. So do we base our decision about this project on pure speculation/wishful thinking that the SWRB is going to moderate its salinity requirements/negotiate with cities? Frankly, it is up to individual citizens to decide whether they think the arguments of the SWRB, Public Works Directors of Woodland and Davis are more compelling, or the arguments of Sue Greenwald and the Vanguard…
[quote]The courts weighed in on the Tracy decision, and merely said that cost is one factor that must be considered by the SWRB. But that is essentially all the courts said. The courts did not say the SWRB is going to have to moderate its salinity requirements — E. Roberts Musser[/quote]This is not pure speculation; it is well-informed speculation, just as it is informed speculation that that our deep aquifer might run low someday. It might be 20 years from now; it might be 60 years from now. With conservation, it might be longer; no one knows the amount of water or the rate of recharge. (No adequate studies have been done of the deep aquifer, according to the leading specialist I spoke with).
I wish we had both water sources; I would like to have both water sources. We should be making our decision based the long-term insurance of value having the surface water in place versus the economic risk of building the needed infrastucture during a deep recession.
We don’t have to do the project now. We should think long and hard about the fiscal impacts of water/sewer/garbage bills of around $2,300 a year not just on Davis, but also on the much less affluent Woodland during a particularly severe downturn. I don’t think it is wise to adopt an “at any cost” posture. We are facing a classical dilemma, and we should remain flexible in our thinking and continue to analytically weigh the situation based on realism and not on scare-tactics.
Above all, we should focus on keeping costs down. This involves NOT overbuilding the treatment facilities, not buying more summer water (we don’t need it) and keeping our eye on the financing situation.
It is critical that Davis and Woodland fund their respective portions separately. IMHO, Davis has been much more fiscally conservative than Woodland, and Davis ratepayers should not have to cover Woodland’s share if Woodland has trouble with collections.
[quote]Above all, we should focus on keeping costs down. This involves NOT overbuilding the treatment facilities, not buying more summer water (we don’t need it) and keeping our eye on the financing situation.
It is critical that Davis and Woodland fund their respective portions separately. IMHO, Davis has been much more fiscally conservative than Woodland, and Davis ratepayers should not have to cover Woodland’s share if Woodland has trouble with collections. [/quote]
Good points…
Ahhh… any treatment facilities built now had better provide for being compatible with maximum expansion to meet our future allotments…