When the City of Davis brought in Ed Schroeder and George Tchobanoglous, they seemed to suggest that the city could move forward with only one project while scaling back on the need for an expensive wastewater treatment plant.
Now Ed Schroeder has an editorial in the Davis Enterprise that argues that we need better water now.
According to Mr. Schroeder, a professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis, when the council brought him and his colleague to advise them, they were particularly interested in two questions, “Do alternative solutions exist that have not been considered, and can water supply and wastewater dispersal issues be addressed in a manner that spreads capital investment over a longer period of time and allows lower rate increases?”
They ultimately concluded, as other experts have, that water supply and treatment projects were interrelated. He argues now that “both needed to proceed.”
He adds, “However, we suggested that alternatives to the proposed wastewater treatment plant could be developed that would be considerably less expensive.”
They based their review on five basic guidelines:
- Security and reliability of the water supply source(s) is of paramount importance to the long-term security of a community;
- Provision of an adequate supply of high quality water is a fundamental responsibility of the city;
- The value of water will rise significantly in the future and water supply options will diminish;
- The planning horizon should be as long as possible; and
- The city must meet applicable requirements for water quality, water treatment and water reuse and/or dispersal.
“The water supply and wastewater management issues are tied together because selenium concentrations in the intermediate aquifer are above limits in our discharge permit,” he argues. “Stricter discharge requirements on other minerals such as boron and total salt content are expected in the future to protect groundwater and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.”
Furthermore, he argues that the city’s well conditions and the quality of water in the intermediate level aquifer was deteriorating.
“A 2008 National Water Research Institute panel noted that 12 of the city’s 23 wells were more than 30 years old; that a number of intermediate aquifer wells had been taken out of production due to high nitrate, selenium, total dissolved solids and other mineral concentrations; and major investments would be needed to maintain the system,” Professor Schroeder writes.
In order to avoid these problems, the city has been forced to rely more on new wells that draw in water from a “deep aquifer” which is more than 1500 feet below the surface.
Professor Schroeder sees problems developing with such deeper wells, also.
“The deep aquifer is believed connected to the upper intermediate aquifer and pumping could result in drawing contaminants from higher elevations into the deep wells as well as additional ground subsidence and loss of aquifer capacity,” he writes. “More important is the unknown sustainability of the deep aquifer if the city begins to rely more extensively on water from that depth.”
The critical question I would ask at this point is whether we could use this deep well as a bridge to get us to a future point in time where the economy is perhaps better and the city has largely paid off its $100 million wastewater treatment upgrade.
Originally, it seemed that the consultants were arguing that the city, by implementing the surface water project, could cheapen or forestall wastewater treatment upgrades.
Professor Schroeder has always argued that the city needed to import surface water.
He writes, “Based on the available information, we concluded, and I continue to believe, that prudence demands developing a surface water supply at this time.”
“The Sacramento River is a high-quality source of municipal water supplies used by Sacramento, West Sacramento, 550,000 people in Contra Costa County, the Metropolitan Water Agency of Southern California and many others,” he continues.
He also argues the city point about the future availability of water rights: “Competition for surface water is increasing from other users and the demands that maintaining delta water quality place on supplies. Obtaining rights to Sacramento River water may not be possible in the future and the cost of buying water rights is expected to increase dramatically in coming years.”
“Postponing development will reduce future options and may require more expensive alternatives such as indirect potable reuse of municipal wastewater as is now being done in Southern California and El Paso, Texas, or direct potable reuse now being introduced in Cloudcroft, N.M., and Big Springs, Texas,” he writes.
While Professor Schroeder and his colleague were able to help the city reduce the cost of the wastewater treatment project, Mr. Schroeder never addresses critical fiscal and economy issues that would mitigate his other points.
First, as we have noted, the surface water project is going to result in the tripling of the city’s rates. Mr. Schroeder never addresses this point or how he thinks the city can reduce costs in this project.
Second, the economy continues to be sluggish at best and some believe it may be moving toward another recession. And yet that never gets mentioned here.
So, from a purely water standpoint there may be important considerations to take into account, such as that postponing development might reduce future options and require more expensive alternatives. However, current development might threaten local business efforts.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]While Professor Schroeder and his colleague were able to help the city reduce the cost of the wastewater treatment project, Mr. Schroeder never addresses critical fiscal and economy issues that would mitigate his other points.
First, as we have noted, the surface water project is going to result in the tripling of the city’s rates. Mr. Schroeder never addresses this point or how he thinks the city can reduce costs in this project.[/quote]
I am very appreciative of Mr. Schroeder for speaking up. As I pointed out before, the two UCD experts have always deemed it necessary to move forward with the surface water project first and foremost. One of the purposes of the surface water project is to ultimately reduce the costs of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. Otherwise we are going to be faced with a much more expensive fix, and a monumental failure in addressing our dwindling water supply from subsidence and contamination.
Secondly, what are the alternatives for those who want to postpone the surface water project? I have as yet to hear any substantive suggestions.
Thirdly, I think it very likely that water rates will not necessarily triple. It is something the Dept. of Public Works and others are diligently working on…
Fourthly, if you listen carefully to the spokesman from the SWQCB, he makes it emphatically clear that future fines will evaporate any costs savings a city realizes from failing to move forward with new water quality standard compliance…
To my second point, in reading the comment section of the previous article on the surface water project, apparently the alternative is to put the surface water project off until we have fully paid for the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. However, that solutions comes with its own set of problems:
1) Higher costs of wastewater treatment plant? Higher costs of construction financing?
2) How long will the deep level aquifers last?
3) How much will the city be fined if they fail to comply w the new standards?
“How much will the city be fined if they fail to comply w the new standards?”
ERM, I’ve asked that many times on here and nobody seems to know.
ERM:
The mandatory minimum penalties for failure to comply with the RWQCB discharge permit vary based on what the violation is. A complete breakdown of the penalties is at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/ciwqs/publicreports.shtml
Look for the Mandatory Minimum Penalties header, then click on the “Enforcement Policy” link. A word document titled WQEP.doc will come up.
Curtis
Dr. Schroeder’s piece is a valuable but essentially an ACADEMIC exercise
which offers little to no information on the cost/benefit and what specifically would be the cosequences of putting off this project for a period of perhaps 10-15 years until the economy improves, revenues return to the State and Federal coffers that can help pay for these infrastructure costs,mechanisms to have developers contribute heavily to the cost of this project without which their peripheral land holdings are worthless for future residential development. Elaine suggests that a way be found to get developers to pay their share once it is a “done deal”.. Once the project is funded and in-progress, there will be little or no leverage to get them to make their fair contribution. My guess would be that the negative environmental consequences of such a 10-15 delay would be minor.
First off, no one has suggested ignoring regulations. The postponement option would involve participating in the current variance process and proving that it infeasible to do the surface water project at this particular time due to our changed fiscal circumstances (no university contribution, a new waste treatment plant, no state or federal grants and extraordinarily perilous economic times) and negotiating interim solutions, more feasible solutions.
As I have been saying, the extent to which we can phase in our huge capitol improvements projects, i.e., new wastewater treatment plant, pending storm sewer upgrades (not even factored into costs yet) and the surface water project, the more fiscally feasible it will be.
Salinity standards are being revamped and could well be more reasonable in the future.
The key here is the understanding of just how fiscally infeasible the current schedule is, and renegotiating interim solutions with the Water Resources Control Board.
I addressed Ed’s comments on this blog yesterday, so I will essentially repeat what I have previously written.
I initiated bringing in George Tchobanoglous and Ed Schroeder to review the wastewater treatment plant after other citizen experts had told me that we did not need to spend $200 million on the wastewater treatment plant. Staff had said that we needed the $200 million design, and a contract for the $200 million design was on the city manager’s desk ready to sign when professors Tschobanoglous and Schroeder explained to us that we could do a wastewater treatment plant for half the price.
Ed and George are among the world’s leading experts on wastewater plant design. They saved us from making a $100 million mistake, and I will be eternally grateful.
That said, Ed and George are not experts on the current changing regulatory environment, nor on groundwater, nor on water rights or water purchase. Nor do they necessarily agree with each other on everything when it comes to issues that diverge from wastewater plant design. That is to be expected. When I talked with George, he was much more concerned with the trade-offs between cost and advantages of surface water now than was Ed.
Ed is talking about groundwater, water rights, and future water costs here – not his areas of expertise. His opinion in these areas if valued, but it is not the last word.
Regarding groundwater, Ed is merely quoting the report that staff had commissioned. This is the same staff who hired consultants who told them that we needed a $200 million wastewater treatment plant – a conclusion with which Ed disagreed.
When I talked with a leading expert on groundwater a few years back, he said that the proper studies on the groundwater were never done, and he estimated that the time frame for potentially running into problems was more likely to be 40 to 60 years than 4 to 6 years. That said, we have everything in place if we run into groundwater problems.
Ed’s also argues that we need to do the project now, or we will lose our water rights. Again, he is quoting incorrect information on our water rights that he has received (perhaps from JPA members, since at least one JPA member recently made these factually incorrect statements in writing). Ed says that
[quote]”Competition for surface water is increasing from other users and the demands that maintaining delta water quality place on supplies. Obtaining rights to Sacramento River water may not be possible in the future and the cost of buying water rights is expected to increase dramatically in coming years.”[/quote]In fact, we have our water rights already secured for 40 years, and they will not be taken away if we postpone the project. Perhaps, if we declared that we were not going to do the project at all, the SWRCB would take the unprecedented action of pulling the water rights. But if we need an extension, we have certainly made enough progress, and will continue to make enough progress (easement acquisitions, etc.) to show that we can complete the project within the 40 years.
Ed’s concerns about the increased cost of purchased summer water in the future are also not compelling to me. Jim Yost concurred with my assessment that we have already purchased enough in the way of summer water rights.
Typo correction: His opinion in these areas ARE valued.
Sue: Thanks for the commentary.
For what its worth, IMO it makes no sense to put in new waste water infrastructure before new drinking water infrastructure UNLESS the plan is to commit to groundwater long term. If the city is going to move to a system based primarily on surface water, then the common sense approach would be to first implement the new water system and THEN assess the situation as part of the waste water infrastructure design process. In my mind, spending $100 million or more upgrading our sewage system based on engineering assumptions/projections about how our unbuilt surface water infrastructure is going to play out in the real world is a completely unacceptable risk.
Regarding the surface water proposal that’s on the table, could you please comment on (1) why UCD is not involved, and (2) the veracity of the claims that, under the current design, some rate payers will NOT get surface water even though they will be required to help pay for it? Thanks.
Sue Greenwald,
Nice contribution to the discussion. I’m surprised a thorough and rigorous groundwater sustainability (quantity and quality) investigation has not been performed for the Davis area; I would think this would be critical for decision-making. Certainly there are staff at UCD Hydrology Program that would be qualified to help steer or evaluate such a study. Might be a bit late in the game to design and conduct a thorough assessment program now.
Also, does anyone know if an option of stormwater recharge (to aquifers) has been evaluated?
I understand that stormwater is polluted; but if recharged far away from supply wells the filtering/absorption with the sands, silts, and clays and subsurface chemical & biochemical breakdown reactions might mitigate most of the pollutants (a thorough investigation would be needed to assess this); and such recharge helps maintain hydraulic head distant from the recharge source (helping to reduce subsidence).
2012: These are good questions. Initially, I also had hoped that we could do the surface water project first and then the wastewater project after we had all or most of the surface water project paid off, since there are obviously many good reasons to have the surface water over and above meeting regulatory requirements. However, I was told that we had no way around the new wastewater plant due to some of the non-salinity related constituents.
As I have mentioned, there are avenues that we haven’t yet pursued regarding the salinity limits. Our deep aquifer wells actually overlap with river water in terms of salinity have acceptable selenium levels.
Which provides a good segue into your equity question: In terms of some residents getting less of the surface water and more of the well water, I will try to recall the explanation that staff gave (you should double-check this with staff).
First, they said that pure river water was not good for our water pipes. Secondly, they said that there should not be too much difference in hardness between the surface water and the well water because our deep aquifer wells, as I mentioned, overlap in terms of hardness with river water.
[b]In terms of the University not paying:[/b] This is a huge problem. When I was first on the council over a decade ago, the University was pushing the project and was going to pay 20% of the cost. As time went on, they backed out of the helping to pay part of the deal.
Yet, in the course of researching this issue, I came across a letter that the University submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board which states the University needs this water to meet their own wastewater discharge requirements. So, one could infer that they need the water but don’t want to pay for the infrastructure that the water requires.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter, and there is the link: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/daviswoodland/daviswoodland_policy_ucdavissidneyengland.pdf
[quote]Responding to new wastewater treatment regulations. Groundwater hardness causes the UC Davis campus wastewater to be relatively high in salt. The Regional Water Quality Control Board issues NPDES permits for the UC Davis wastewater treatment plant and is concerned that these salt levels may impact downstream agricultural users and municipal water suppliers. In response, the Regional Board has issued violations and fines to the University. In the most recent permit process, the University was given some time to address the issue, but obtaining new water supplies is the least-cost, best way to achieve compliance with the Regional Board’s water quality goals.— [b]UC Davis letter to State Water Resources Control Board[/b][/quote]
I think I should repost the discussion of the University withdrawing payment separately.
[b]IN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSITY NOT PAYING:[/b] This is a huge problem for us. When I was first on the council over a decade ago, the University was pushing the project and was going to pay 20% of the cost. As time went on, they backed out of “the helping to pay” part of the deal.
Yet, in the course of researching this issue, I came across a letter that the University submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board which states the University needs this water to meet their own wastewater discharge requirements. So, one could infer that they need the water but don’t want to pay for the infrastructure that the water requires.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter, and there is the link: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/daviswoodland/daviswoodland_policy_ucdavissidneyengland.pdf
[quote]Responding to new wastewater treatment regulations. Groundwater hardness causes the UC Davis campus wastewater to be relatively high in salt. The Regional Water Quality Control Board issues NPDES permits for the UC Davis wastewater treatment plant and is concerned that these salt levels may impact downstream agricultural users and municipal water suppliers. In response, the Regional Board has issued violations and fines to the University. In the most recent permit process, the University was given some time to address the issue, but obtaining new water supplies is the least-cost, best way to achieve compliance with the Regional Board’s water quality goals.— [b]UC Davis letter to State Water Resources Control Board [/b][/quote]
[quote]ERM, I’ve asked that many times on here and nobody seems to know.[/quote]
I’m not sure the SWQRCB even knows. You might want to take a look at the link provided by commenter maconi (I haven’t done so yet, but will when I have more time – thanks maconi!). But here is my understanding from listening to the SWQRCB representative at the last JPA meeting. Federal/state regulations lay out what monetary penalties will be imposed for specific infractions. Also, if a city is in violation for multiple infractions, the city can be fined for every infraction for each month it occurs, which can quickly add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in a year’s time. From what the SWQRCB representative indicated, it does not have a whole lot of discretion and MUST impose the draconian fines.
But there are caveats to this scheme –
1) The Tracy decision makes it clear that cost to ratepayers must be a factor taken into account in determining whether an extension/waiver will be given; but extentions/waivers will only be granted to those jurisdictions who are making good faith efforts to come into compliance.
2) It will be the policy of the SWRQCB to make sure any city not in compliance with water quality standards will not benefit economically from a failure to comply – by imposing stiff enough fines to remove any fiscal incentives for noncompliance;
3) Water quality standards are federal; the state may impose more stringent standards; and standards at the federal/state level are subject to change – probably upward. It is highly unlikely standards will be loosened.
There may be some other caveats, but I cannot think of them off the top of my head. As you can see, the entire punitive fine system is tricky at best, very confusing, and subject to a certain amount of interpretation. That is why you really cannot get a definitive answer with respect to how much the fines will be. Woodland is getting fined every day for not being in compliance, but they are also working towards solving their noncompliance problem. The impression I had from the SWRQCB representative is that if Woodland was not working towards coming into compliance, they would be fined a heck of a lot more – in fact fined however much they were saving by not instituting the surface water project.
[quote] Elaine suggests that a way be found to get developers to pay their share once it is a “done deal”.. Once the project is funded and in-progress, there will be little or no leverage to get them to make their fair contribution. [/quote]
This is a fair point. I don’t know if there is any way of getting developers to pay for water/sewer infrastructure costs once the surface water project is a done deal – but there should be. After all, future developers will be benefitting from this project, if it is approved.
[quote]Dr. Schroeder’s piece is a valuable but essentially an ACADEMIC exercise which offers little to no information on the cost/benefit and what specifically would be the cosequences of putting off this project for a period of perhaps 10-15 years until the economy improves, [/quote]
First, I would offer that the proposed delay being contemplated by some is far more lengthy than your estimation of 10 to 15 years – namely until after we fully pay for the wastewater treatment plant – which is more like 30 years from now.
Secondly, why is Mr. Schroeder’s opinion somehow merely “ACADEMIC” as you put it, because it does not agree with your “more learned” opinion that the project be put off for 10 to 15 years? Do you have more experience on these issues than Mr. Schroeder that we don’t know about? I don’t mean this as a personal attack in any way, but I would be interested to know if you have any more expertise than Mr. Schroeder and I read Mr. Schroeder’s article, and it made quite a few very solid points:
1) Stricter discharge standards are expected for the future;
2) The condition of the city’s wells and quality of water in the intermediate aquifers is deteriorating;
3) Major investments would be needed to maintain the current system as is;
4) Pumping from the deep aquifer could result in: drawing contaminants from the mid-level aquifers already contaminated; additional ground subsidence; loss of aquifer capacity;
5) Competition for surface water is increasing;
6) Postponing development of surface water supplies will reduce future options and may require more expensive alternatives, such as indirect potable reuse of municipal wastewater/direct potable reuse as is now being done elsewhere.
Which one of these points is mere “ACADEMIC” in nature, and somehow less worthy of consideration/does not “hold water” (pardon the pun)? Which one(s) of the points above do you disagree with, and if so why?
Some time ago I had a lengthy discussion with Bob Weir, then head of the Dept. of Public Works. His comment about the new water quality standards (enacted in 1972, but only just now actually taking effect) was that no cost-benefit analysis had ever been done to determine if cleaning up discharged wastewater to this finicky degree was worth all the infrastructure costs it was going to require to achieve these unrealistic stringent water quality goals. It would seem to me the notion of a cost-benefit analysis would be far more useful at the federal level – but good luck with that! Now we are stuck with these ridiculously radical water quality standards in the middle of an economic downturn once pushed by single minded environmentalists who had no idea citizens would reap what overzealous environmentalists sowed.
Having said that, the question really becomes: What risks are citizens willing to take in regard to:
1) Potential stiff fines for noncompliance w the new water quality standards;
2) Deep level aquifers not meeting future water requirement needs.
3) Costs of the surface water project/wastewater treatment plant upgrades being unaffordable.
I can’t answer that – only the citizens of this city collectively can decide how much/which risks they want to take…
[quote]First off, no one has suggested ignoring regulations. The postponement option would involve participating in the current variance process and proving that it infeasible to do the surface water project at this particular time due to our changed fiscal circumstances (no university contribution, a new waste treatment plant, no state or federal grants and extraordinarily perilous economic times) and negotiating interim solutions, more feasible solutions. [/quote]
The real question is how convincing would these arguments be to the SWQRCB? Have you tried approaching anyone on the SWQRCB, to see what they have to say?
[quote]In fact, we have our water rights already secured for 40 years, and they will not be taken away if we postpone the project. Perhaps, if we declared that we were not going to do the project at all, the SWRCB would take the unprecedented action of pulling the water rights. But if we need an extension, we have certainly made enough progress, and will continue to make enough progress (easement acquisitions, etc.) to show that we can complete the project within the 40 years. [/quote]
You have just contradicted yourself. You concede that it is possible we could lose our water rights if the SWQRCB decided to take them away bc we slept on those rights. With so many clamoring for those water rights, I don’t see that as necessarily beyond the realm of possibility. Again, it is a risk analysis – how much risk are citizens willing to take? It is pay me now (pay for the surface water project now) or pay me later (delay the surface water project and risk losing water rights, being fined whatever we would save, deep level aquifers give out so we do not have reliable source of water supply)…
[quote]That said, Ed and George are not experts on the current changing regulatory environment, nor on groundwater, nor on water rights or water purchase… Ed is talking about groundwater, water rights, and future water costs here – not his areas of expertise. His opinion in these areas if valued, but it is not the last word. [/quote]
I have to ask the obvious question: Would you be attacking the credentials of Ed Schroeder as an expert in regulatory matters, if he were not disagreeing with your opinion? Or to put it another way: What makes Ed Schroeder’s opinion any less valid than your own?
[quote]For what its worth, IMO it makes no sense to put in new waste water infrastructure before new drinking water infrastructure UNLESS the plan is to commit to groundwater long term. If the city is going to move to a system based primarily on surface water, then the common sense approach would be to first implement the new water system and THEN assess the situation as part of the waste water infrastructure design process. In my mind, spending $100 million or more upgrading our sewage system based on engineering assumptions/projections about how our unbuilt surface water infrastructure is going to play out in the real world is a completely unacceptable risk. [/quote]
And this is precisely the position taken by the two UCD “experts” Council member Sue Greenwald herself insisted be brought in to weigh in on the issue of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. It makes eminent sense.
[quote]Which provides a good segue into your equity question: In terms of some residents getting less of the surface water and more of the well water, I will try to recall the explanation that staff gave (you should double-check this with staff).
First, they said that pure river water was not good for our water pipes. Secondly, they said that there should not be too much difference in hardness between the surface water and the well water because our deep aquifer wells, as I mentioned, overlap in terms of hardness with river water.[/quote]
I didn’t here any of these explanations per se. What I did hear from City Staff is that the infrastructure to bring surface water to the entire city would be too costly. But I will admit that is a very vague recollection. However, this question has come up on a number of occasions, and is a fair point. Especially when there is a claim that we can do away with water softeners, or that the city may even ban their use (I think Souza mentioned that possibility).
[quote]IN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSITY NOT PAYING: This is a huge problem for us. When I was first on the council over a decade ago, the University was pushing the project and was going to pay 20% of the cost. As time went on, they backed out of “the helping to pay” part of the deal.
Yet, in the course of researching this issue, I came across a letter that the University submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board which states the University needs this water to meet their own wastewater discharge requirements. So, one could infer that they need the water but don’t want to pay for the infrastructure that the water requires. [/quote]
This has me completely perplexed/baffled. Why should UCD be able to benefit from a project they are unwilling to pay any part of? However, I vaguely remember something about UCD not needing to use the water from this surface water project in the end of it all, bc they could just rely on the deep level aquifers if both cities use the surface water from the Sac River most of the time, but again, that is just a (very) vague recollection. Something just doesn’t seem quite right/doesn’t make sense here…
Worse, a representative from UCD and the County have a seat on the JPA, and are thus part of the decisionmaking – on a project they are in no way providing funding for… something really, really wrong with this picture…
And the entire way the water rights to Conaway Ranch came about over the Christmas holidays smelled to high heaven…
It has certainly been a less than perfect process… but it is what it is, so now we have to deal w what we’ve got…
@ERM:[quote]This has me completely perplexed/baffled. Why should UCD be able to benefit from a project they are unwilling to pay any part of? However, I vaguely remember something about UCD not needing to use the water from this surface water project in the end of it all, bc they could just rely on the deep level aquifers if both cities use the surface water from the Sac River most of the time, but again, that is just a (very) vague recollection. Something just doesn’t seem quite right/doesn’t make sense here…
Worse, a representative from UCD and the County have a seat on the JPA, and are thus part of the decisionmaking – on a project they are in no way providing funding for… something really, really wrong with this picture… [/quote]Elaine: I vaguely recall a rumor (and I need to stress that my memory of the conversation is very poor) I heard many months ago that UCD may have threatened to sue the city if we attempted to drill another deep aquifer well. Because of this recollection, I share your uneasiness. Is there an element of competition for a scarce resource?
[quote]Elaine: I vaguely recall a rumor (and I need to stress that my memory of the conversation is very poor) I heard many months ago that UCD may have threatened to sue the city if we attempted to drill another deep aquifer well. Because of this recollection, I share your uneasiness. Is there an element of competition for a scarce resource?[/quote]
Yes, this goes along w my very vague recollection that somehow if the JPA approves the surface water project, there will be more water in the deep aquifers available to UCD so that it has no need for our surface water. But again, why should UCD be allowed to benefit from the surface water project w/o paying for it? I know we are just speculating somewhat here, but a process that allows UCD to be part of decisions it is not paying for but may benefit from APPEARS highly inappropriate and a conflict of interest…
[quote]… APPEARS highly inappropriate and a conflict of interest …[/quote]You mean like having a mayor negotiating on our behalf who also happens to be an mid-level UCD administrator (presumably with aspirations of advancement)? Not making an accusation … just suggesting that divided loyalties COULD be problematic in this instance.
Sue: Are you aware of any friction re: more drilling into the deep aquifer?
[quote][b]E. Roberts Musser says:[/b] The real question is how convincing would these arguments be to the SWQRCB? Have you tried approaching anyone on the SWQRCB, to see what they have to say?[/quote]yes.
To E. Roberts Musser: You have raised a lot of questions and made a lot of insinuating comments, but if you reread my comment, I think you will see that I have already answered most of these questions that you raised, and that I have been clear, consistent and have supported my position.
What it comes down to is that different experts say different things, and we each have to use our judgement and draw our own risk/benefit conclusions, taking into account fiscal risk as well.
If you have specific questions or see specific inconsistencies, it would be easier to discuss if you could list them concisely, rather than take up so much room on the page that it obscures the back and forth.
Regarding University threats to sue over groundwater: Anyone can threaten to sue over anything. As you can see in my 08/30/11 – 06:47 PM post, the University has a vested interest in trying to force us to complete the project quickly.
I have read a bit and talked with a regulator about groundwater rights, and it appears that the area is not at all clear cut, and that most litigation results in compromise solutions. All we need is a compromise solution, since we will be going to surface water; it is all a matter of timing. I am an optimist and assume that the University cares about the solvency of the city. But I am prepared to defend the jurisdiction that I represent.
Unfortunately, litigation is just a cost of doing business in the mega-dollar water business, and isn’t even budget dust in the total cost of this project.
DON’T FORGET
GET YOUR PROP 218 PROTEST LETTER TO THE CITY CLERK BY SEPT. 6
[i]”Schroeder is not an expert on the current changing regulatory environment, nor on groundwater, nor on water rights or water purchase.”[/i]
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Z7H5-NjU4B4/Tl7x2P2-ZNI/AAAAAAAAAfU/0dATlmvtsWc/s1600/schroeder.bmp[/img]
It is amazing that my repeated suggestion that the project be mostly paid for by selling development rights falls upon deaf ears simply because development is a four letter word to most Davis residents. You reap what you sow.
What I am trying to say is that water rights and water aquifer measurements are just very unique specialties, and are the crux of the issue of timing.