On March 20, the Davis City Council approved a contract with Carollo Engineers to re-evaluate the issues associated with obtaining water from West Sacramento for the city, as well as for Woodland and UC Davis.
The idea was to provide a comparison to the project that was being pursued through the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency.
The original contract was not to exceed just under $100,000. According to the staff report from March, during previous efforts to explore options for surface water projects, the city and UC Davis had initiated a joint feasibility study that examined alternative locations, including one involving a partnership with West Sacramento to utilize their treatment plant and intake location to obtain river water.
That option involved an increased capacity in the existing intake, expanding the treatment plant and constructing a conveyance pipeline across the Yolo Bypass to Davis.
Ultimately, that plan died. West Sacramento had been in the process of planning for an expansion of their facility to meet their planned growth and ultimate build-out needs envisioned by their General Plan. According to the staff report, “The joint alternative was analyzed and discussed with West Sacramento from approximately 2000 through 2002. The assessment showed it was a viable option in the short term.”
However, the plan was beset by uncertainties. According to staff, concerns included: “Davis and UC Davis had not yet had their water rights applications approved by the State leading to uncertainty over the ability to meet long term water demands from all three agencies with only West Sacramento’s water rights available; economic conditions were fueling strong growth in West Sacramento contributing to the concern about how much water West Sacramento could commit to Davis and UC Davis without impacting their needs; and questions over the business arrangements for a joint project.”
Staff explained that those concerns plus the pressure for West Sacramento to move on their expansion led staff to pursue other projects.
West Sacramento completed their expansion while Davis and UC Davis would partner with Woodland to eventually form the JPA.
Following the City Council’s December 20, 2011 decision to repeal the Water Rate Ordinance, the City of West Sacramento expressed a renewed interest in exploring the possibility of providing surface water to Davis, Woodland and the University, staff reports.
Part of the calculation was the slower growth in West Sacramento that has produced an excess of capacity to provide river water.
In March, the Davis City Council approved an independent review that “will consider the option in light of the conditions that exist today, which have changed significantly since the original assessment took place.”
Again, the original contract called for just under $100,000. This week the council is being asked on the consent calendar to approve a $40,000 extension of the contract.
Writes city staff, “In April, after the initial contract was executed, as a result of discussions at the Water Advisory Committee (WAC), it became apparent that having a separate assessment of W. Sacramento providing water only to Davis and UC Davis would be important in the community discussions taking place at the Water Advisory Committee.”
The initial schedule provided that the assessment would be completed in time to bring information to the Water Advisory Committee at their June 14, 2012 meeting.
Writes staff, “The additional work will be completed by the time Council takes action on the contract The additional work will be completed by the time Council takes action on the contract amendment.”
They add, “Normally staff would not commit the City to an expense without providing Council an opportunity to decline. However, with the discussion of options at the WAC identifying this option as one necessary to consider in the rate model and insufficient time available to go to Council, staff directed Carollo to perform the extra work prior to bringing the contract amendment to Council.”
They continue that staff is requesting, in addition to a base $15,400, an additional $24,500 in funds that would “provide a contingency fund for Carollo to perform any additional effort that may be useful in addressing Water Advisory Committee, or City Council questions. The contingency funds would only be spent with the approval of the City Manager.”
According to a May 7 letter to the city, “Carollo will perform an additional analysis with the following assumptions and modifications: Water supply will only be for the City of Davis; A long-term peak day water supply capacity of 19.4 million gallons per day (mgd) is needed; The same pipeline route between West Sacramento and Davis established in the original analysis is to be used; Local improvements are assumed to remain the same and will not be evaluated; An implementation schedule will not be developed; Environmental constraints established in the original analysis are assumed to be the same.”
Carollo will conduct “An evaluation of the modifications needed to the West Sacramento Bryte Bend Water Treatment Plant (BBWTP) and intake to provide the City of Davis a reliable long-term peak day water supply capacity of 19.4 mgd while continuing to serve the needs of West Sacramento existing and future customers.”
In addition, “Using the routing established in the original analysis, preliminary sizing of the facilities needed for conveyance of treated water will be updated for delivery of treated water to the City of Davis only.”
“Carollo understands that the City Water Advisory Committee has a meeting scheduled for June 14, 2012, at which the results of the original analysis and this effort will be discussed,” they write. “Carollo understands that a contract amendment with the City is forthcoming. However, due to the tight schedule for the project, Carollo and the City have agreed to begin work on the project prior to contract approval upon receipt of a purchase order from the City.”
Some believe this effort could save the city millions of dollars, but there are some important caveats that must be considered in addition to costs.
From the original item in March, the city staff noted, “If the review indicates modest to no cost benefits and potentially significant environmental/regulatory processing hurdles, no further effort would be recommended. If however, the cost benefits are significant when compared to the current WDCWA option, even with some regulatory challenges, the option might be worth investing further efforts to determine if it should replace the current preferred alternative.”
However, as previous discussions indicate, the city would have to be able to own the capacity rather than simply purchase water from West Sacramento which could be rescinded if the city resumes its growth when the economy and real estate market finally recover – if they do.
The Vanguard‘s primary concern is that the residents have these options on the table along with the costs when they finally vote for the ballot initiative scheduled for November along with a Prop 218.
We understand that the WAC and city are making all efforts to do so. We also understand that the schedule is extraordinarily tight and any bump or hiccup, though unforeseen and unintended, could harm that delicate balance.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”However, as previous discussions indicate, [b]the city would have to be able to own the capacity rather than simply purchase water from West Sacramento[/b] which could be rescinded if the city resumes its growth when the economy and real estate market finally recover – if they do.”[/i]
Good article David, especially as a companion piece to the discussions in yesterday’s article.
Regarding the bolded comment above, I was pretty much of the same mind up until the May 24th WAC meeting, where Steve Bayley from the City of Tracy spoke to the WAC about his city’s experience with conjunctive use. His presentation starts at the 40:00 minute mark of the WAC meeting video which is available at [url]http://cityofdavis.org/media/wac-2012-05-24.ram[/url]. He lays out very clearly how Tracy has thrived in a “purchased water” scenario.
If it does turn out that Bryte Bend is a viable option, I personally prefer a regional JPA approach with Davis and Woodland joining West Sac as owners. I believe there are substantial financial incentives for doing it that way that do not exist in a “purchased water” configuration, but as a result of Steve Bayley’s experiences in Tracy, I no longer rule out buying water under a long-term contract (40 years in Tracy’s case).
Please note, that these are my personal thoughts and they do not represent the thoughts of the WAC as a whole.
It makes no sense to rush this matter to a November vote.
The rushing and pushing by the water consultants and staff and the CC majority is what led to the incorrect rates on the Sept 6th 2011 CC vote.
Let’s slow down, and make sure this is done right.
If it is a good project, at an affordable cost, the community will support it.
Michael, I don’t disagree with you in principle. There is absolutely no reason to rush this decision, absolutely no reason.
The July deadline for ballot language is an artificial deadline, at best, and it has nothing to do with either the quality of the project or the quality of the decision being made about the project.
With that said, it is a real deadline in one key sense. If we push back from the table now, then that action has the potential consequence of the loss of upwards of $50 million for the citizens of Davis. Avoiding that potential loss is achievable without “rushing this matter.” No one. Not you. Not me. No one wants the davis electorate to be faced with an incomplete or flawed choice in November. The combination of the ballot and a Prop 218 formal process well before the ballot should be able to provide both a complete and unflawed choice for the voters.
So bottom-line making a decision NOW to move the ballot to April doesn’t add anything to either the quality of the project or the quality of the decision, but it definitely does detract from the quality of the project in one of the possible alternatives.
I will be glad to meet with you in person to discuss this further, if you so desire.
Matt
[quote]The Vanguard’s primary concern is that the residents have these options on the table along with the costs when they finally vote for the ballot initiative scheduled for November along with a Prop 218.
We understand that the WAC and city are making all efforts to do so. We also understand that the schedule is extraordinarily tight and any bump or hiccup, though unforeseen and unintended, could harm that delicate balance.[/quote]
You have laid out nicely many of the issues in regard to the West Sac option. However, a huge unknown is how such a choice will effect Woodland, and in turn how will Woodland’s reaction effect Davis. As you observe, it is a delicate balancing act and the city must tread very carefully…
[quote]Michael Harrington: It makes no sense to rush this matter to a November vote.
The rushing and pushing by the water consultants and staff and the CC majority is what led to the incorrect rates on the Sept 6th 2011 CC vote.
Let’s slow down, and make sure this is done right.
If it is a good project, at an affordable cost, the community will support it. [/quote]
Michael, Matt has answered your question very well and exactly on point, to wit:
[quote]So bottom-line making a decision NOW to move the ballot to April doesn’t add anything to either the quality of the project or the quality of the decision, but it definitely does detract from the quality of the project in one of the possible alternatives. [/quote]
The city does not want to limit its options by insisting on delay NOW, precipitously pushing Woodland into making a decision to “go it alone”. Ultimately delay may be necessary, but that decision does not have to be made NOW. Better to finesse the entire matter in regard to delay until LATER, and allow the parties involved (Davis, Woodland, West Sac) to work out the best option for all concerned. It is now that citizens need to put their trust and faith in the WAC, and allow it to do its work and figure out the process by which it will come to a fair and reasoned conclusion…
Is there any way to get a sense from Woodland policy-makers about what they are planning, what their timeline is, and how they would perceive a six-month delay at the Davis end of the partnership? Could some of the councilmembers from Woodland be invited to address the WAC?
The suggestion in your final sentence is an intriguing one Don. Here are my thoughts. Having them come and address the WAC would be highly dependent on timing. It would make little sense to have them come prior to our knowing whether the West Sac option is a viable one. If they came before they knew that, the likelihood is that they would be pretty clear in their commitment to the WDCWA project, and absent some compelling alternative, if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t waiver prior to seeing something that was fiscally compelling.
Therefore, having them come in advance of the Council’s impending ballot language decision wouldn’t contribute anything useful IMHO.
There is no hurry, and the alleged loss of $50 million sounds just like the sky is falling chorus that was thoroughly debunked last fall
Michael, I will be glad to sit down with you and go over the detailed numbers so that you can see them for yourself. I have nothing to gain , , , only due diligence to share.
BTW, Michael, I agree 100% that there is no hurry. No hurry to rush a decision about the appropriate project, and no hurry to postpone the November date. We have plenty of time between now and November to pull the ballot question if all the right information isn’t in hand to make an informed and transparent community decision.
[quote]There is no hurry, and the alleged loss of $50 million sounds just like the sky is falling chorus that was thoroughly debunked last fall[/quote]
If there is no hurry, then there is no hurry to push for a delay…
Can someone tell me if this is solely a proposal to use West Sacramento’s intake and treatment facilities, or if this is also proposal to purchase water from West Sacramento?
Assuming that this is just to use and/or augment their existing facilities to handle the additional capacity required by the City of Davis, can someone address the following issues/questions:
1) Is there sufficient capacity at the intake structure to handle the water needs of Davis? How about UC Davis and Woodland? If not, what would it take to expand this capacity in terms of time and cost, and what is the certainty that this could be accomplished?
2) Davis has two sets of water rights that it has acquired. One set is from the state and the other is from Conaway Ranch. What ability does Davis have to simply take their water from the Sacramento River at this new location? Is this allowed, or is there a process to allow this and what is the level of certainty that this could be accomplished?
3) Would taking their water from a different location require a new environmental document? Are their new or different impacts to taking the water from a different location and bringing it into the City from the southeast rather than from the northeast? If so, what might the time and cost be, and what is the level of certainty that the City could be successful? (These are not engineering questions, but legal and permitting questions.)
4) Carollo is an engineering firm, correct? I presume that they are studying the engineering of this new (old) proposal. From my limited understanding of water, the engineering is probably the easy part. The more challenging part is figuring out the legal side of things. Who is advising the WAC and the City on the feasibility of taking its water through West Sac’s intake facility?
5) What legal obligations does the City of Davis have to Woodland and the JPA? Does it have the ability to take its share of the water from the State and from Conaway and simply route it through West Sacramento?
6) If Davis pursues such a West Sacramento option, but is ultimately unsuccessful, what are the potential risks or costs with having gone down this path? Can it simply just jump back in with Woodland and the JPA, or are there some real and significant costs to going down this path?
7) Would Woodland have to take Davis back, or would it then be in the driver’s seat in terms of the terms with which it might allow Davis to rejoin it?
We’ve got a bunch of new faces at the City. It would be good to understand if there are some other reasons why this didn’t happen the first time, and whether in addition to some new reasons as to why it might make more sense now, if there are some other reason that cause it to incrementally make it make less sense, as well.
If I’m West Sacramento, I’d be a bit leary of our City. Our track record seems to indicate that we aren’t the most reliable of partners. I just hope that when the day is done that we can still find a good dance partner!
newshoundpm said . . .
[i]”Can someone tell me if this is solely a proposal to use West Sacramento’s intake and treatment facilities, or if this is also proposal to purchase water from West Sacramento?”[/i]
The answer to that question will have to wait until Thursday night at the earliest. At this juncture, we simply do not know.
My personal desire is that there are two high level options 1) water purchase, or 2) a regional intake/water treatment jointly owned by Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento. Both options will have a number of different possible sets of details.
newshoundpm said . . .
[i]”1) Is …
2) Davis …
3) Would …
4) Carollo …
5) What …
6) If …
7) Would …”[/i]
I fully expect all seven of those questions to be addressed by Carollo in their report. I encourage you to come to the WAC meeting on Thursday. Will you be there?
newshoundpm said . . .
[i]”We’ve got a bunch of new faces at the City. [b]It would be good to understand if there are some other reasons why this didn’t happen the first time[/b], and whether in addition to some new reasons as to why it might make more sense now, if there are some other reason that cause it to incrementally make it make less sense, as well.”[/i]
Why do you think it would be good? Those events can’t be changed and really don’t impact what can be done now. Because of the recession and the housing crash and the fiscal situations in all three cities, we have a whole new world. Lets focus on the present and the future. That is where a deal will be made or not made. As Nancy Price said in public comment at Council tonight, a solid cost-benefit analysis is needed for the WAC to properly evaluate this option. I would add that such a solid cost-benefit analysis is needed for West Sac to properly evaluate this option and a solid cost-benefit analysis is needed for Woodland to properly evaluate this option. I fully expect the WAC will do what is necessary to make a transparent decision that all Davis citizens can understand.
newshoundpm said . . .
[i]”If I’m West Sacramento, I’d be a bit leary of our City. Our track record seems to indicate that we aren’t the most reliable of partners. I just hope that when the day is done that we can still find a good dance partner!”[/i]
Your statement above may well be the answer to your “it would be good to understand …” question. With that said, Tuesday probably changed the landscape significantly.
Matt: Can’t make the meeting, but will try to watch it. The “It would be good to understand…” comment really was meant to indicate that a number of reasons have been stated as to why the deal died the first time, but with a lot of new faces now asking the questions, I’m just hoping that someone isn’t missing an important reason due to some loss of institutional memory on the part of the City of Davis. It is definitely good to look at things fresh, and circumstances have definitely changed in some important ways. Does the City have a water lawyer, and if so, who is it? I know that the JPA has a water lawyer, but can and is the City using him due to potential conflicts of interest?
To newshoundpm: You have asked a lot of extremely important and excellent questions that most definitely need answering. The WAC should be getting a lot of the responses to these questions at their June 14 meeting and beyond…