As the city council has moved to re-think their previous vote from September 6, that put forward water rate hikes in advance of the Woodland-Davis water supply project, Brett Lee this week issued forth his own position on water.
Brett Lee is one of four candidates for three spots on the Davis City Council that will be on the ballot in June, and the only non-incumbent.
“I believe the current approach to the proposed water project is backwards,” he argued in his op-ed that is dated December 21 in the Davis Enterprise.
“What is being proposed is a 1970s-style big municipal project that is being driven by the assumed need that we must produce 160 gallons of drinking water per person per day. It assumes that we will continue to use drinking water to irrigate our lawns and wash our cars long into the future,” he writes.
He continues, “Is it not odd that we propose to pull 160 gallons of water per person per day out of the Sacramento River, treat it to drinking water quality and then pipe it eight miles to Davis so that close to 100 gallons of that water can be used to keep our lawns green?”
Mr. Lee adds, “For a forward-thinking town, I am surprised that there have not been more voices talking about more modern approaches to water use.”
He notes that cities such as Orlando and Las Vegas, not known as innovative and progress, “have embraced the idea of matching water quality to water use, so parks and greenbelts there are watered with non-potable water.”
He argues, “Our Public Works Department has some plans to use well water to irrigate parks and greenbelts. But I believe these plans do not go far enough.”‘
While many have argued that this project is growth-neutral, he notes that Davis is planning for a project that will support 100,000.
“Understandably, the engineers are designing a project that will grow as our needs grow,” Brett Lee writes. “Even though in 2035 when our city is projected to have a population of 85,000, we are building a plant to support 100,000.”
He asks why our town of 68,000 is being asked to pay for the water for 100,000.
“What if our town of 68,000 instead built a plant that provided water for 70,000 people? Don’t you think we may be able to save some money on project costs? And perhaps save our ratepayers some money?” he asks.
In advancing his plan, Mr. Lee notes, “You may have noticed that the proposed water rate increases (the infamous ’14 percent increase’) actually were predicated on the average ratepayer using 20 percent less water over time.”
He argues for the reduction of the community’s “water footprint,” arguing, “We as a community can decide to maintain or reduce that footprint even as we grow. Any reductions in use free up water for future users.”
In so doing, he argues that we can actually add people to the city of Davis while using the same amount of water.
One way he proposes to do that would be for future developments, such as the one potentially at ConAgra. “The city could build a supply line from a nearby existing unused well to the ConAgra property to provide non-potable water. ConAgra would be required to design a project with a dual pipe system – one pipe for outdoor use water and one pipe for indoor use (this is not cutting-edge; it is tried and true and done all over the United States and the world, including the UC Davis campus).”
He therefore argues, “In this way, instead of each new resident using 160 gallons of drinking water per day, they would instead only need about 40 gallons of drinking water a day. The 1,000 new people would use only the drinking water of 250 people. So where do we get the water for the net equivalent of 250 people?”
He also notes, “There are programs that other communities have successfully used to help defray the upfront costs of replacing lawns with less thirsty plants (‘cash for grass’) and for replacing older toilets, faucets and showerheads with more efficient ones. And there are programs with incentives for businesses to install high-efficiency commercial dishwashers, etc. These programs save water, but cost money.”
He argues, “New development could pay a one-time water fee based on the number of new units. This fee could help fund the citywide conservation/efficiency program. By having money available to help the existing residents and businesses improve their water efficiency, additional water would be freed up for the new development.”
If we were to implement this process, Brett Lee argues, “Over time, as an entire community we would become very water-efficient. This is not about deprivation or eliminating bathtubs, this is about smart, sensible, efficient use of water. Flushing your toilet with 1.2 gallons per flush versus 5 gallons per flush saves all of us money because you are using less water and the community is not overbuilding plant capacity.”
“As a community, Davis could maintain its current water footprint going forward. By doing so, we would be in the forefront of communities in terms of smart planning and wise use of natural resources. In addition, we would save our residents some money,” he concludes.
How will this proposal fit into the larger debate over surface water? How much would such a proposal save the city? It is unclear.
However, Bob Dunning, the Davis Enterprise columnist who has been among the leading critics of the water project, says this morning, that “while not really taking a position one way or the other on the surface water project, Lee rightly questions the wisdom of requiring that the water we pour on our lawns be of the same quality as the water we pour down our throats …”
He writes, “Asks Lee, ‘Is it not odd that we propose to pull 160 gallons of water per person per day out of the Sacramento River, treat it to drinking water quality and then pipe it eight miles to Davis so that close to 100 gallons of that water can be used to keep our lawns green?’ … that’s what one of my long-ago professors called a ‘self-answering’ question … Lee’s point makes sense to me unless, of course, your dog drinks out of the toilet …”
And finally he adds, quoting Brett Lee, ” ‘For a forward-thinking town, I am surprised that there have not been more voices talking about more modern approaches to water use. Cities such as Orlando and Las Vegas have embraced the idea of matching water quality to water use, so parks and greenbelts there are watered with non-potable water.’… hey kids, no more drinking out of the backyard hose …”
A keen observer may note a small problem with the plan. That problem is not the portability of water but the constituents in the effluent discharge. On the other hand, many of the other water usages, particularly regarding watering of plants, do not end up in the city’s water discharge but are absorbed into the ground or evaporate.
More studying would be needed to see if the dual water-usage plan is viable, and what impact if any, a small water project would have on overall costs and rates.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Brett Lee will make for a nice replacement of Souza.
At least it will be very interesting to hear what he has to say about the other important issues we face as well.
[i]”What if our town of 68,000 instead built a plant that provided water for 70,000 people?[/i]
“the campus is in the early stages of studying whether it can add 5,000 more qualified undergraduate students in the next five years — with an appropriate and responsible mix of instate, out-of-state and international students — and support 300 new tenure-track faculty positions.”
[url]http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10013[/url]
The City of Davis has to plan for the growth of the campus population and the added faculty and staff positions.
It would be great if Brett would describe how he believes the city and campus should deal with the water quality and regulatory issues.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Brett Lee will make for a nice replacement of Souza.”[/i]
rusty, I was in a conversation with one of the Progressive stalwarts a short while back and much to my surprise when I said the same thing to that person, their response was, “No, Brett Lee will make for a nice replacement of Sue Greenwald.” You could have knocked me over with a feather.
Hey Matt, don’t you think Brett will look good sitting in Souza’s council seat?
[quote]How will this proposal fit into the larger debate over surface water? How much would such a proposal save the city? It is unclear.[/quote]
[quote]More studying would be needed to see if the dual water-usage plan is viable, and what impact if any, a small water project would have on overall costs and rates.[/quote]
Yes the devil is in the details. I applaud Brett Lee for 1) keeping the discussion civil/rational; 2) thinking outside the box. But far more needs to be done than just proposing ideas. These ideas must pencil out from a practical standpoint. My hope is Brett Lee will visit the WAC and make suggestions there, where his suggestions can be properly vetted…
I have to imagine that the water treatment facility will be constructed in phases, with the initial phase just large enough to handle current development plus a little bit more, assuming no or little reduction in per household consumption. New development would have to pay for any new incremental capacity that could come from either existing user reductions or an increased physical capacity of the system. New plant capacity would undoubtedly be more expensive than conservation at least until some greater level of conservation is achieved, so this part of Brett’s proposal makes some sense. One needs to take a look at the cost of dual piping for potable and non-potable water. Definitely doesn’t make economic sense to retrofit something like this in existing areas, but might make sense if there was a local well system nearby to provide the non-potable water. Generally doesn’t work for residential due to the dog and kids drinking from the backyard hose, but could work for parks and theoretically for a dedicated irrigation system. (i.e. backyard hose would use potable water). This could be a good strategy to try to prevent future growth in Davis. Unfortunately, may be difficult to selectively allow only UC Davis to grow and utilize the housing. But, maybe the opponents to growth don’t want UC Davis to grow, either. If this is the case, the no growth proponents may also be the residents secretly or not so secretly against any water conservation measures.
I do like the creative and rational thought process that Brett seems to be applying. Hopefully he will try to vet some of these ideas prior to the election.
@Matt Williams: Hey Matt, how about telling us who this “progressive stalwart” is?
I should mention that council unanimously agreed with my request to put the size of the surface water treatment plant on the agenda for our water discussion in January, along with a number of other issues, including the cost split between the Woodland and Davis.
The size of the treatment plant will make very little difference to our total water/wastewater rates if we proceed with the current approach and/or timing. That said, IMHO, I have always agreed that there is no reason to over build any component given the extraordinary cost.
“@Matt Williams: Hey Matt, how about telling us who this “progressive stalwart” is?”
My guess is Caspar.
SG said: “The size of the treatment plant will make very little difference to our total water/wastewater rates if we proceed with the current approach and/or timing.”
Sue, can you further explain your comment? I’m having trouble making sense of it, so I must be missing something. I don’t understand how the size of the treatment facility wouldn’t make much difference in rates and/or how this might be related to whether “we proceed with the current approach or timing.” Also, if the size of the treatment facility really doesn’t affect rates, then is there any reason not to size it a bit bigger for added potential future capacity, unless one is simply opposed to growth and the sizing of the plant is a means of controlling growth?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Matt Williams: Hey Matt, how about telling us who this “progressive stalwart” is?”[/i]
Sue, that is up to the stalwart to do.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”My guess is Caspar.”[/i]
The friendly ghost?
When he announced his candidacy, Brett stated that he favored going forward with the surface water project in “2, 3 or 4 years.” Some of his supporters privately assured Sue Greenwald that Brett shared her position (delay the surface water project 20 years or so). Those positions are not compatible, and he has never clarified his position on the surface water project.
One might read in this op-ed that he now opposes it, or thinks it should be scaled back. But inasmuch as Dan and Steve have taken public positions on the surface water project, I think it is only fair to ask that Brett do so as well.
As to financing conservation projects with fees on new development, I don’t really see why new home buyers should subsidize the conservation efforts of existing residents or businesses. And I should note that rate increases are the most effective and most common approach to longterm residential water conservation. In order to achieve 20% reduction in water usage in Davis, you would either need to raise rates about as much as (or more than) the recently rescinded amounts, or you would have to impose water conservation ordinances. Obviously water conservation programs such as buybacks have some impact, but not enough.
Replumbing existing subdivisions isn’t going to occur readily. Mandating that the ConAgra site, should it ever actually be developed for residential use, have split plumbing is an interesting idea. But it implies continued use of the intermediate wells. The goal is to [i]get away from[/i] using the high-selenium shallower water. So it could turn out to be an expensive mandate that ultimately gets abandoned due to the water quality problem in the runoff.
[quote]And I should note that rate increases are the most effective and most common approach to longterm residential water conservation. In order to achieve 20% reduction in water usage in Davis, you would either need to raise rates about as much as (or more than) the recently rescinded amounts, or you would have to impose water conservation ordinances.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Water usage has already been going down dramatically without water rate hikes. People are responding voluntarily to the calls to conserve. This trend could be encouraged by giving a break to those who conserve and raising rates for those who don’t. This could be adjusted by per capita household use. That is a policy decision, but we do not have to collect more in rates in order to achieve further conservation.
“rusty49 said . . .
“My guess is Caspar.”
The friendly ghost?”
That’s right Matt, as in he doesn’t exist.
@ Sue: You are assuming the city can achieve a 20% water use reduction without an overall increase in water rates? Can you cite any city that has achieved that? The law of diminishing returns tells us that is unlikely. What is your plan if that doesn’t occur?
Here are the water stats from the May 2011 WSOP report on the city web site:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/wateruse.jpg[/img]
Landscape water use is proportional to the ET rate for the region and the season. We have been anomalously low due to cooler summer conditions for 2009 – 2011. I believe expecting continued conservation at the rate shown over the last couple of years would be unreasonable. 2010 likely represents a low data point. I would be curious on what data you are basing your optimistic assumption.
Don: As I said, if people don’t conserve voluntarily and we need conservation to meet salinity requirements (it is not even clear that we do if we regulate water softeners and continue proceed with our repiping of shallow aquifer water for irrigation and complete our new deep water wells), we can institute conservation rates that account for per capita personal use. I don’t understand why you don’t think that would work as well as the higher across the board rates.
Even the winter water use based sewer rates has caused me family to adjust our water use.
[i]we can institute conservation rates that account for per capita personal use.[/i]
The point I am making is they would have to be draconian. If you think people objected to the recent proposed rates, try instituting even more steeply tiered rates to induce conservation. Just ask Bob Dunning or davisite how they would like to have their current rates increased. Apparently neither can conserve any more than they already are.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b] I suspect Bob Dunning wouldn’t mind conservation rates if it turns out that a) they are necessary in order to phase in the two megaprojects and hence avoid exorbitant rates and b) they are adjusted for per capita personal use.
“My proposal is very, very simple. Charge all Davisites the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY per gallon for water. That way we all share equally in this.
If you use more water, you pay more. If you use 10 times more water, you pay 10 times more. If you use little or no water, you have little or no bill.” — Bob Dunning, via email.
“My proposal is very, very simple. Charge all Davisites the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY per gallon for water. That way we all share equally in this.
It is interesting that Dunning seems to want to “all share equally” when it comes to being charged for a necessary substance. I wonder if he would also support us all being compensated for our work equally (say for example that everyone is paid the same amount for an hour of work or school) so that “we all share equally” in the benefits of our society as well as its costs. Just wondering.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”My guess is Caspar.”
Matt replied . . .
The friendly ghost?”
rusty49 replied . . .
That’s right Matt, as in he doesn’t exist.”[/i]
I’m not sure I understand what you are driving at rusty. Care to elaborate?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Don: As I said, if people don’t conserve voluntarily and we need conservation to meet salinity requirements (it is not even clear that we do if we regulate water softeners . . .”[/i]
Sue, do you really think the citizens of Davis would support “regulation” (a ban) of water softeners? That is imposing a rather substantial hardship on a very large segment of the Davis populace.
For the record, my residence does not have any water softening/treatment, so I would not be affected by such “regulation.”
@ Matt: banning water softeners is simple. Here’s how it’s done:
[url]http://www.lacsd.org/civica/inc/displayblobpdf2.asp?BlobID=6603[/url]
So here is the plan.
Build any water project just to the capacity required for our current population. Davis isn’t going to grow, and UC Davis isn’t going to grow, in the next 20 years or so. Even though UCD plans to add 5,000 more enrollment in the next five years.
Apply for variances for the next 20 years or so, first for salinity, then selenium, then boron, and probably for five other constituents eventually.
Pump most (80%+) of our water from the deep aquifer. UCD will also do that. For 20+ years.
Seek voluntary conservation of about 20% overall. If that doesn’t work, enact tiered rates to force conservation. Not sure what to do if that doesn’t work, because without conservation our water system will be below peak capacity. Probably force conservation at that point.
Finally, try to tie in to the project that Woodland built, on their terms. Or build our own system separately.
[i]@Don Shor: I suspect Bob Dunning wouldn’t mind conservation rates if it turns out that a) they are necessary in order to phase in the two megaprojects and hence avoid exorbitant rates and b) they are adjusted for per capita personal use. [/i]
[i]My proposal is very, very simple. Charge all Davisites the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY per gallon for water. That way we all share equally in this.
If you use more water, you pay more. If you use 10 times more water, you pay 10 times more. If you use little or no water, you have little or no bill.” — Bob Dunning, via email. [/i]
@Sue Greenwald: Oops. How frustrating it must be to finally use someone else’s name as supporting your position, only to find a quote directly refuting your position. Looks like you might be swimming in water that is a little too deep. Better to go back to the shallow end and reference unidentified people in powerful positions to support your unsubstantiated thoughts. At least then no one can produce a direct contradiction within 16 minutes of your post.