As we wind down toward the elections, we continued to ask the candidates for Davis City Council to respond to one hard-hitting Vanguard question on the issues that matter to Davis, or at least to the Vanguard.
Answers are limited to 250 words, which is a logistical decision and completely unfair based on the complexity of the question.
Question: Is the West Sacramento water option a game-changer for the city of Davis? How do you see it impacting residents’ rates? And would you accept a deal without ownership assurances?
Dan Wolk
Dan Wolk
The West Sacramento water supply option has the potential to save our ratepayers tens of millions of dollars. Unlike the current Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) conjunctive use project, it would not require the construction of a whole new intake and water treatment plant. Exploring all reasonable alternatives is consistent with the motion I made last fall that reflected the community’s concerns.
There are a number of criteria that will need to be evaluated before deciding to pursue this option. These include, among others, the cost and payment structure, overcoming the environmental and regulatory hurdles associated with crossing the Yolo Bypass, what the duration of the contract with West Sacramento will be, what the attendant rate amount and structure will be, how difficult it will be for West Sacramento to terminate the contract, whether it will be publicly-operated or privately-operated, how it will be governed, how maintenance will be handled, and whether it can accommodate future regulatory restrictions in the Delta.
The city has hired an independent consultant to evaluate this alternative. I look forward to the results and the advice of the Water Advisory Committee that was also a part of my fall motion. This is the type of transparent process that an undertaking of this magnitude demands.
Stephen Souza
Stephen Souza
The West Sacramento Water Treatment Plant option was studied in the 2007 EIR. The estimated cost in November 2011 dollars was $194 million. The current estimate for the WDCWA project is $125 million for Davis’ share of a higher quality plant. In 2007, West Sacramento chose not to allow Davis to use the excess capacity of its treatment facility because of their growth forecasts. Due to the current slowdown in growth they have indicated a willingness to allow Davis to use their treatment facility. We will soon be able to quantify the buy-in and infrastructure costs. However there are many uncertainties that make this project a riskier and potentially more expensive option for Davis:
- Will we have control of the source of our water?
- What happens when West Sacramento wants to return to its growth path?
- Can easements be obtained to run the pipeline and at what cost?Davis might even have to invoke eminent domain to acquire these easements.
- Can environmental documentation be completed and all legal challenges addressed and dismissed in a time frame to meet the NPDES permit deadline?
- How long will it take, and is it even possible, to split our portion of the water rights?
- This will cause a rift in our relationship with Woodland.Woodland will also incur additional costs to meet its water needs.What are the potential legal liabilities by abandoning our current partner?For example, if Davis exits, Woodland will lose an $8+ million Federal Grant to assist in building the intake facility.
Sue Greenwald
Sue Greenwald
During my early years on the council, our surface water plan involved a joint venture with West Sacramento. The alternate plan involved a parallel intake near the West Sac intake. A number of years later, we were told that West Sacramento had withdrawn from discussions, and that we were switching to a Woodland-Davis venture with the intake up near Woodland.
Shortly before our new city manager arrived, I learned that there were real questions regarding who actually withdrew from the Davis-West Sacramento venture. Having always felt that the project was too expensive for Davis and Woodland to undertake alone, I shared this information with our new city manager, and he said that he was meeting with the West Sacramento City manager and would inquire. Months later, the West Sacramento City manager got back to our city manager and said that West Sacramento was indeed still interested. There appears to be some potential for us to join the West Sacramento system either alone or in conjunction with Woodland.
This has potential to significantly lower the extraordinary costs of our combined new wastewater treatment plant and surface water infrastructure projects. Why have two separate systems serving the region if one would do? It’s a no-brainer.
Obviously, the details would have to be worked out.
Lucas Frerichs
Lucas Frerichs
The Water Advisory Committee (WAC) is rigorously reviewing the entire water project, and at its May 24 meeting, had a discussion of conjunctive use alternatives to the Davis Woodland Water Supply Project. Appointing a commission like the WAC is a great way to utilize our community’s expertise, and it provides a place for evidence and facts to be vetted and heard by the community. (As an aside, this is an example of what makes our community great, citizens with diverse backgrounds and experience giving of their time to make recommendations to their fellow community members and city council.)
I have attended/watched all WAC meetings and feel like they are doing a solid job evaluating the issues.
I’m not inclined to say that a West Sac option is yet a “game-changer” for the City of Davis. I appreciate that the inquiry has expanded to include the West Sacramento alternative, but I am interested in honoring the WAC process (continuing to hear evidence/facts as presented and deliberated by the WAC).
As I have stated previously, the keys for me in this project are to ensure that rates are affordable and structured equitably; and public ownership is a top priority for me.
I will support a project that is aligned with our community’s values. I believe that a groundwater-only solution isn’t a feasible path forward, and having options is a good thing, particularly when it comes to something as important as our community’s water supply.
Brett Lee
Brett Lee
For the long run security of our community, I believe we should have a second source of water.
The Water Advisory Committee (WAC) has recently decided that the best way forward is to have a conjunctive use water project (a project that makes use of both surface and ground water). Yet to be determined is the amount of surface water to be used, the timing of the project, and whether the source is the Woodland-Davis JPA or the West Sac plant.
The cost figures are not yet available for the West Sac option. It is anticipated that the West Sac alternative will be substantially lower in upfront costs as compared to the originally proposed project. That is a good thing. In fact, it is quite possible that the cost of the West Sac alternative will be so much lower that it will be the clear choice for the WAC. However cost is but one component; it is likely that we would want some long-term guarantee of supply. This could take many forms- joint ownership, long-term contracts, etc.
It is premature to declare that the West Sac option is the winner, but I along with others certainly hope it has dramatically lower costs and therefore would yield the most reasonable rates for us.
It is my belief that whatever proposal the WAC comes up with, it will be less expensive and have a more reasonable rate structure than the originally proposed project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sue said “Shortly before our new city manager arrived, I learned that there were real questions regarding who actually withdrew from the Davis-West Sacramento venture. Having always felt that the project was too expensive for Davis and Woodland to undertake alone, I shared this information with our new city manager, and he said that he was meeting with the West Sacramento City manager and would inquire.”
So now Sue wants to take credit for getting this option back on the table. Just like it was Sue and not Emlen who got the other members to rethink the sewage plant. I’m sure Provenza and McGowen had nothing to do with it. Nor did Dan Wolk who asked me shortly after he was appointed if I had any ideas about how to save money on the surface water project. My guess is he asked everybody he knew as he searched for lower cost solutions and that there was no expectation that i had any special insight.
If you believe going back to West Sac was Sue’s idea I have a Toad Tunnel i can sell you.
It’s remarkable that Steve Souza has not changed his position on the water project at all even though the WAC has been meeting and producing new information for months. Is he so out of touch that even though new information is available he is unable to change his views?
And I attended the first few WAC meetings that were held at the Senior center and never saw Lucas there. So I am going to dispute his claim that he has attended/watched “all” the WAC meetings.
[quote]Why have two separate systems serving the region if one would do? It’s a no-brainer. Obviously, the details would have to be worked out.[/quote]
I hardly think the West Sac option is a no-brainer. The devil is always in the details. One of the problems with the West Sac option is we would only be a customer, not a partner. Thus far, West Sac has no interest in being a partner. If West Sac decided to grow later on and Davis was a mere customer, that could be problematic for Davis. As the WAC goes through a thorough analysis, all the pros and cons of each option will have to be weighed. Sometimes it is difficult to put a monetary value on certain issues…
[quote]I’m not inclined to say that a West Sac option is yet a “game-changer” for the City of Davis. I appreciate that the inquiry has expanded to include the West Sacramento alternative, but I am interested in honoring the WAC process (continuing to hear evidence/facts as presented and deliberated by the WAC).[/quote]
I deeply appreciate this statement. It is important to allow the WAC to do a complete analysis before deciding an issue. The WAC is attempting to leave no stone unturned; to weigh carefully all options. It is not helpful when sitting Council members, groups, or citizens attempt to take options off the table for consideration before the WAC has had the opportunity to analyze these options thoroughly…
[quote]And I attended the first few WAC meetings that were held at the Senior center and never saw Lucas there. So I am going to dispute his claim that he has attended/watched “all” the WAC meetings.[/quote]
Lucas has been to several WAC meetings, and I believe has been following the WAC meetings closely based on conversations I have had w him…
[quote]conjunctive use water project (a project that makes use of both surface and ground water). Yet to be determined is the amount of surface water to be used, the timing of the project, and whether the source is the Woodland-Davis JPA or the West Sac plant.
The cost figures are not yet available for the West Sac option. It is anticipated that the West Sac alternative will be substantially lower in upfront costs as compared to the originally proposed project. That is a good thing. In fact, it is quite possible that the cost of the West Sac alternative will be so much lower that it will be the clear choice for the WAC. However cost is but one component; it is likely that we would want some long-term guarantee of supply. This could take many forms- joint ownership, long-term contracts, etc.
It is premature to declare that the West Sac option is the winner, but I along with others certainly hope it has dramatically lower costs and therefore would yield the most reasonable rates for us.[/quote]
Very sensible response. You have hit the proverbial nail on the head – “it is likely that we would want some long-term guarantee of supply. It is premature to declare that the West Sac option is the winner”. Like you, it is my hope the West Sac option pans out, but there are most definitely issues with this particular solution, just as there are with the surface water project as proposed…
[quote]Exploring all reasonable alternatives is consistent with the motion I made last fall that reflected the community’s concerns…I look forward to the results and the advice of the Water Advisory Committee that was also a part of my fall motion. This is the type of transparent process that an undertaking of this magnitude demands.[/quote]
Well said!
[quote]Will we have control of the source of our water?
What happens when West Sacramento wants to return to its growth path?[/quote]
You’ve zeroed in on two important issues…
Dear 2cowherd-
I stand corrected.
I submitted my answer to David late last evening at 11pm, and in my haste in proofreading, I missed the word “nearly” in front of “all WAC meetings”.
Yes, I have attended some, and watched some (as they are being broadcast live on TV).
Thanks very much- Lucas
Re: “The devil is in the details…”
The devil in the details is the water with regard to West Sac is water quality and not contractual concerns. Simply said, West Sac water, IMHO, is not of sufficiently high quality to consider using for potable use in Davis. This is because the method they use for oxidation of organic contaiminants and disinfection is UV instead of ozone. Ozone, as is planned for the WDCWA, is a far superior oxidixzing agenet and destroys more contaminants far faster than UV while doing a much better job of disinfecting the water with fewer disinfection byproducts.
More unoxidized organic contaminants in the water means West Sac has to add more chlorine to the water to overcome the organic demand in order to acheive a stable chlorine residual for disinfection of the delivered water. The high residual level of organics in the water combined with high levels of chloring means that the water has a high level of classes of organic compounds called trihalomethans and haloacetic acids. Current federal drinking water standards require that these chlorinated hydrocarbons (called disinfection byproducts) be low in drinking water because they are carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic (such as chloroform). West Sac, while potentially meeting the minimum level of disinfection byproducts required by law, is still loaded up with them. It is not good drinking water quality for those concerned with the highest purity and least contamination possible.
In addition to the formation of these potentially harmful disinfection byproducts, addition of high levels of chlorine also makes West Sac water taste like crap with an overbearing chorine taste due to the formation of chloramines and similar chlorinated compounds.
Most high quality water plants using surface water now use ozone as their primary oxidizing agent for this main reason. MWD and LADWP collectively ozone billions of gallons of water per day that they bring in from N. California and the Eastern Sierra through their canal network. Almost all river water treated in Europe is ozonated. It is the state of the art and is planned for the WDCWA. West Sac does not use this approach and they have a resultant low quality water which would raise howls of objections from Davis resident.
Can’t respond to comments for a few hours as I will be out of the office.
Thanks to Alan Pryor for his comments. This is important information relative to the prior discussion about whether or not surface water is unfit to drink. I find it strange that we would even be considering partnering with an existing plant that uses old technology and doesn’t adequately treat these organics.
The West Sac alternative is starting to look like another red herring to me.
“Question: Is the West Sacramento water option a game-changer for the city of Davis? How do you see it impacting residents’ rates? And would you accept a deal without ownership assurances?”
David, has the city staff and/or the WAC done some analysis on this “option” that you’ve suggested might be a game-changer. Sue told us yesterday that she got a tip from some unnamed (yes, more secret sources) that the council had been misled all these years.
Exactly what is “the West Sacramento water option” about which you had the candidates provide their wisdom?
PS–Please get them on the record about the other Davis government secret (the handling of the ombudsman’s report) before it’s too late. That was a great coup for the Vanguard and it needs followup with the candidates before the election.
PPS–Have you gotten calls from other media about the fire department? I’m out of town and wasn’t able to find anything in the Enterprise, Daily Democrat or Bee websites about your report.
So West Sac has extra water capacity – enough to meet our needs at a much cheaper cost.
They are doing analysis on it, but mostly its behind the scenes right now, the key as several have indicated is whether the city of WS will allow Davis to be part of the project. As several people have commented, if the city has to just buy water from West Sac, then when WS grows again, the city is SOL. However, if the city can be a joint owner of the facility its a game changer.
I’m weighing whether to ask them about the report in the final question or something else.
The Enterprise I think is going to do a story, I spoke to Tom Sakash briefly, he needs to get up to speed on the issue however.
I dont see how the WAC can finish the research, analysis, and recommendations in time for the new CC to put something on the Nov ballot with fixed rates for a fixed project that the voters can consider.
For example, the development of working with West Sac water department is a new issue, and there has to be coordination between the two CC before Davis can vote on the project.
The W. Sac plant can be built so expansion can be added; the Woodland-Davis plant was being designed that way.
Keep West Yost out of this.
Sure, Chris Cabaldon would let his constituents drink poison water.
And so would you or at least water with lower quality to save money.
Alan Pryor’s remarks are important and give us an interesting ballot choice. Does Davis want to save money at the expense of water quality? Of course we might do another cost benefit calculation to look at upgrading West Sac to ozone treatment. So we would have 4 choices; do nothing, merge with West Sac, merge with West Sac and up grade or go with the original Conaway Plan.
Mike is right this could take a while to figure out but why the rush to the ballot box?
By the way Alan, I saw LA just banned plastic bags at check out. Looks like L.A. is going to be a better environmental steward than Davis and have better water too.
West Sacramento water meets all standards. If it is necessary to switch treatment, they will. Regardless, it is going to be less expensive to join a larger system that is already built and that has excess capacity than building an entirely new and different system. Keeping costs down is better for everyone except, apparently, some building trades unions.
“Does Davis want to save money at the expense of water quality?”
Isn’t West Sac getting their money from the same source as we would be?
“I personally have a problem with candidates self-funding their campaigns.”
I believe this is an intellectually dishonest position or at least a convenient one for you. The real point is that you happen to not favor the two candidates that self-funded and so you have conveniently used that as a point of departure.
Wrong article please delete.
Yes yes yes, it might be cheaper to go with West Sac and I agree the water will meet safety standards allowed by law. Still Alan Pryor raises an interesting point about water quality vs. cost. Davis has always chosen the cheapest alternative that is why we gave up our water rights to Putah Creek 60 years ago. I have no doubt given a choice between legal cheaper water and more expensive even better water Davis will do a cost benefit analysis, shrug and go the cheap route. Just remember when the kids in town drink water that has lower quality the choice was a conscious one. i wonder where the local Sierra Club stands on this choice?
I think this issue of water quality raised by Alan Pryor should be addressed by expert testimony before the WAC.
Alan
So I just looked at the 2010 drinking water quality reports for West Sac and MWD. The total trihalomethane values don’t appear that much different. West Sac reports a max of 37 ppb, and MWD has a number of plants that report maximums ranging from 26-65 ppb (a distribution system wide average of 41 ppb). So what gives?
Before wasting time and money on expert testimony, how about Alan just explain his statement that MWD water is so much better in terms of trihalomethanes. If there is something incomplete about West Sac’s and MWD’s water quality disclosure reports, Alan I’m sure can fill us in. Otherwise, Alan is just shooting from the hip.
I don’t always agree with Alan, but he does his homework and rarely says something that can’t be backed with strong evidence. I would be cautious before concluding he is shooting from the hip.
[quote]David, has the city staff and/or the WAC done some analysis on this “option” that you’ve suggested might be a game-changer. Sue told us yesterday that she got a tip from some unnamed (yes, more secret sources) that the council had been misled all these years. [/quote]
The WAC will receive a report on the West Sac option on June 14…
[quote]West Sacramento water meets all standards. If it is necessary to switch treatment, they will. Regardless, it is going to be less expensive to join a larger system that is already built and that has excess capacity than building an entirely new and different system. Keeping costs down is better for everyone except, apparently, some building trades unions. [/quote]
First of all, it remains to be seen if the West Sac option is “cheaper”, whatever that term may mean. Secondly, even if it is “cheaper” in the short term dollarwise, it may not be in the long term, depending on what the terms of the contract are. A contract that would only allow us to be a customer of West Sac would be problematic. Should West Sac decide to grow and decide they need all the water they can treat, we could end up on the short end of the stick, and facing the possibility of having to do an entire surface water project down the road, a much costlier proposition. Thirdly, there are various issues with any option that have to be looked at, that are difficult to quantify in dollars and cents, before any decision is made. Alan has mentioned but one. There are others. Why would any sitting City Council member usurp the WAC’s mission, and decide for the WAC what the best option is, before even hearing all the evidence? Why not allow the WAC to carry out its stated mission, without intervention/interference?
[quote]I don’t always agree with Alan, but he does his homework and rarely says something that can’t be backed with strong evidence. I would be cautious before concluding he is shooting from the hip.[/quote]
Alan is quite knowledgeable, and does seem to do his homework. I know the issue he has mentioned is one the WAC will be taking a look at…
Sue said “Keeping costs down is better for everyone except, apparently, some building trades unions.”
Wow, Sue Greenwald, Rich Rifkin and Scott Walker; three peas in a pod.
Has the WAC expressed any concerns at their meetings or to the CC that the matter needs further study, and recommendations should be issued later, without being rushed to meet the artifical deadline of the CC’s July meetings to put something on the November ballot?
Sue said “Keeping costs down is better for everyone except, apparently, some building trades unions.”
And perhaps young children. There are a lot of moms in Davis who feed their kids organic food at premium prices. I bet a lot of them would be willing to pay more for the best possible water for their children to drink. Dismissing Alan Pryor’s concern about water quality as if he was some sort of union stooge is misguided. We need leaders who can engage in a serious debate on the issues not someone who will dwell on settling old political scores.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Has the WAC expressed any concerns at their meetings or to the CC that the matter needs further study, and recommendations should be issued later, without being rushed to meet the artificial deadline of the CC’s July meetings to put something on the November ballot?”[/i]
Gee Michael, why don’t you simply go on the City website and watch the meeting video. Perhaps you will find the answer to your question.
You might even find a motion, a second, and a vote. Imagine that!
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”I don’t see how the WAC can finish the research, analysis, and recommendations in time for the new CC to put something on the Nov ballot with fixed rates for a fixed project that the voters can consider.
For example, the development of working with West Sac water department is a new issue, and there has to be coordination between the two CC before Davis can vote on the project.”[/i]
Michael, again I will point you to the WAC video on the City website. I had to leave the meeting early, so I didn’t witness the full meeting, but I understand that the WAC had anticipated your question and 1) created a subcommittee of the WAC to address your question and many other associated questions, and 2) to formalize a very creative way to not be held hostage by the calendar.
With that said, [u]my own personal opinion[/u] is that if the WAC feels it needs more time to make its decision on a recommendation, then it will directly and forcefully declare that it needs more time and/or information.
The WAC has yet to make a misstep, and I don’t see any such missteps looming on the horizon.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Isn’t West Sac getting their money from the same source as we would be?”[/i]
In a word David . . . yes.
However, their existing bonds for the original plant build and expansion were issued in 2003 and 2002 respectively (the plant build bonds in 2003 were reissues). The interest rates in 2002 and 2003 were very different from what they are today. Further, absent participation by Davis or Davis/Woodland, West Sac will not qualify for the government subsidized rates that come with water/wastewater projects.
Bottom-line, we all need to wait for the Carollo Engineering analysis to arrive.
psdavis said . . .
[i]”I think this issue of water quality raised by Alan Pryor should be addressed by expert testimony before the WAC.”[/i]
It will be on Jun 14th by Carollo Engineering, the firm the Council approved to perform the analysis.
Sue said “Keeping costs down is better for everyone except, apparently, some building trades unions.”
You mean like the guys that built the Golden Gate Bridge?
[quote]Why would any sitting City Council member usurp the WAC’s mission, and decide for the WAC what the best option is, before even hearing all the evidence?–[b]Elaine Musser[/b][/quote]This is a silly and belligerent statement, Elaine.
I was asked point blank, as a candidate, my thoughts about the West Sacramento option. I answered the question as directly as I could in 200 words.
No one is “usurping” anyone’s mission. If the advisory committee comes up with important insights or a consensus is developed, I will weigh those insights and that consensus advice very heavily.
Not silly or belligerent Sue. Not even one iota.
Throughout this process you have chosen to advocate for specific positions/choices/alternatives well in advance of the WAC receiving expert testimony/analysis.
You have argued long and hard here in the Vanguard for a specific rate structure . . . a 100% variable rate of a single price per gallon that applies to all customers in all classes. The rate consultant from Bartle Wells told the WAC that he has not yet been able to process and analyze and validate the legality of all the options he has presented to the WAC. Nonetheless you have jumped in well ahead of his expert testimony and said there is only one right decision.
Now you are arguing vociferously for a specific surface water alternative well in advance of the WAC receiving the Council-selected consultant’s report.
Those are just two examples.
You seem to be a living breathing song . . .
[i]It has to be Sue, it has to be Sue
We wandered around, and finally found – the somebody who
Could make us be true, and could make us be blue
And even be glad, just to be sad – thinking of Sue
Some others we’ve seen, might never be mean
Might never be cross, or try to be boss
But they wouldn’t do
For nobody else, gave us a thrill – with all your faults, we love you still
It had to be you, wonderful you
It had to be Sue[/i]
Matt
This is disappointing. While Elaine’s comment may not have been silly or belligerent, your little ditty certainly was.
[quote]While Elaine’s comment may not have been silly or belligerent, your little ditty certainly was.[/quote]
Whether it was intended that way or not, that’s certainly the way it came across.
.
“This is disappointing. While Elaine’s comment may not have been silly or belligerent, your little ditty certainly was.”
Matt, There is a spare culvert in Toad Hollow if you need a place to serve your penance just no croaking late at night I don’t want to violate the noise ordinance. Also no open containers they are not allowed since Sue voted with the majority for that ordinance.
You are all so thin skinned like frogs I’m sure you are all wet.
I’ve edited Matt’s post and removed some responses.
Don Shor
What a bore
Matt’s poetry you should restore
I laughed so hard I fell on the floor
They was nothing wrong
With his little song
All those offended should relax and hit a bong
Including the censors destrying like King kong
Don, your edit is over the top. Frank Sinatra may have turned over in his grave, but there is a long list of posters (who Sue has referred to as the usual suspects) who have argued that Sue is all about Sue. She relishes the role of martyr. She wants to lecture staff and expert witnesses about how wrong their testimony has been.
[quote]I was asked point blank, as a candidate, my thoughts about the West Sacramento option. I answered the question as directly as I could in 200 words. [/quote]
The following quote from you was in the comment section, NOT in your response to a question about the West Sac option:
[quote]West Sacramento water meets all standards. If it is necessary to switch treatment, they will. Regardless, it is going to be less expensive to join a larger system that is already built and that has excess capacity than building an entirely new and different system. Keeping costs down is better for everyone except, apparently, some building trades unions. [/quote]
Matt William’s statement above is spot on:
[quote]Throughout this process you have chosen to advocate for specific positions/choices/alternatives well in advance of the WAC receiving expert testimony/analysis.
You have argued long and hard here in the Vanguard for a specific rate structure . . . a 100% variable rate of a single price per gallon that applies to all customers in all classes. The rate consultant from Bartle Wells told the WAC that he has not yet been able to process and analyze and validate the legality of all the options he has presented to the WAC. Nonetheless you have jumped in well ahead of his expert testimony and said there is only one right decision.
Now you are arguing vociferously for a specific surface water alternative well in advance of the WAC receiving the Council-selected consultant’s report.
Those are just two examples. [/quote]
[quote]If the advisory committee comes up with important insights or a consensus is developed, I will weigh those insights and that consensus advice very heavily.[/quote]
I’m glad to hear it…