The No on Measure I campaign, the opposition to the water project, put forward the argument that “we do have options” and “there are better alternatives.” After a number of false starts within their op-ed, they arrive at an argument for the West Sacramento option.
They begin their op-ed with the claim that “Davis faces the overwhelming burden of paying simultaneously for two projects: a new wastewater treatment plant and a surface water project. This will triple our water rates and result in water/sewer/garbage rates among the highest in the state.”
They argue, “There are alternatives, but the massive amount of misinformation about the project has obscured the options.”
They intend to dispel what they call misinformation and set the record straight.
“Davis does not need a surface water project to meet city wastewater discharge requirements,” they write. “By managing our groundwater appropriately, we can meet our discharge requirements at relatively minimal cost.”
But they do not explain how that is the case. We know that current discharges do not meet requirements, so how would we manage our groundwater appropriate to meet discharge requirements?
They continue: “Davis water meets all state drinking water requirements.”
That is correct, but also not the point in dispute. The point in dispute is whether we meet discharge requirements, not drinking water requirements.
They continue: “Davis will not lose our water rights if we don’t proceed with the surface water project. Our water rights are 40-year rights and they are secure. No city under similar circumstances has lost its water rights for not proceeding with a surface water project.”
This issue has been subject to some dispute. While some have claimed Davis could lose its water rights if we do not act on them, it seems unlikely that this would actually occur. So the Vanguard agrees with this claim, that Davis is unlikely to lose its water rights if we do not enact this project.
“Davis water quality is not deteriorating; it is, in fact, improving,” they write.
They continue: “Water from deeper in the aquifer has an undetectable level of selenium and is reasonably soft; in fact, it overlaps with river water in terms of its hardness. Since two new wells are already planned and the city will be re-piping some water for municipal landscaping needs directly from the intermediate aquifer, our drinking water soon will be drawn entirely from the deeper, high-quality levels. There is no credible evidence that we have a supply problem.”
We have spent this week establishing the costs of maintaining the existing system, which are considerable. We do not know the source of the claim that the water quality is not deteriorating, but it is also somewhat aside from the point. The important point is that it will not meet discharge requirements and if we end up out of compliance, the city will face a series of fines.
There are questions in the water community as to how long the city can continue to rely exclusively on groundwater. What we believe to be accurate is that the system is not in danger of failing now, but could be in danger of failing within the next fifty years.
It appears from city data that costs will double for maintaining the existing system, perhaps somewhat more if we end up having to drill more deep wells. At some point, this system may not maintain itself. The public can then decide whether to switch to a surface water system.
“The surface water project will not affect the cost of the wastewater treatment plant one way or the other. It has been claimed that the wastewater treatment plant will cost more without the surface water project, but that claim is not correct.”
The assumption that the wastewater system would be more expensive is related to the notion that the city would be out of compliance with discharge and would use the wastewater plant to avoid falling out of compliance.
The No on Measure I folks seem to believe that they can use deep wells for some period of time to avoid the fines and avoid using the wastewater system as the means to meet compliance.
It is interesting to note that the opposition seems to be moving back toward the idea of phasing the two systems.
They write, “Given these facts and the extraordinary cost of the combined wastewater and surface water projects, and the associated extraordinary total municipal utilities bill that Davis ratepayers, both residential and commercial, will have to bear, the city should consider either phasing in the wastewater treatment plant and the surface water project, or finding a more cost-efficient surface water project.”
They continue: “State regulations will not allow us to postpone the wastewater treatment plant, because the nitrogen ammonia limits are non-negotiable and cannot be postponed.”
They add, “But the surface water project can be delayed because our drinking water is in compliance and the groundwater supply and quality are good. Remember that river water supply is not particularly secure because as snowpack decreases, our junior surface water rights will be curtailed in the resulting long, dry season.”
This argument seems to be premised on the idea that: (A) we can avoid administrative fines for non-compliance of our discharge through a more extensive use of the deep water system; and (B) the current 12 mgd project is not the most efficient and cost effective project for securing surface water.
It would be interesting to see how they justify these views.
Up until this point, the opposition seems to simply be recycling old arguments that have been questioned. But the linchpin of their plan is the move to West Sacramento.
They write, “That said, we do not advocate for postponing the surface water project. We advocate for accepting the offer West Sacramento has made to allow us perpetual use of 12 million gallons of surface water a day – the same amount that is planned by the Woodland/Davis project. Yes, West Sacramento has offered us a permanent right to the same amount of water offered by the Woodland/Davis project!”
It is an interesting argument they throw out, but there are some drawbacks to the West Sacramento option. First, it is not clear how much money we would save. Second, we would have to purchase the water plant capacity from West Sacramento. We would not be owning that capacity, but rather renting it.
And the quality of West Sacramento water would not be the same.
“Building a pipeline for 12 miles to get water that’s horrible quality from a chlorination plant?” Alf Brandt told the Vanguard during an interview. “I don’t think that’s an option. That’s not a cost-effective short-term option.”
“If anyone’s really serious[ly] considering that option, they’ve got to go over to West Sacramento and open a few spigots there,” Alan Pryor added. “It is very very strongly chlorinated water. You have a real smell of chlorine coming out of there.”
“As much as people complain about water quality in Davis because of the minerals, at least we don’t have the chlorine smell associated with it, He added. “That’s the direct result of what Alf said, basically it’s a chlorination plant where they use chlorine as their primary oxidizing agent. Chlorine is not a good thing for living organisms, oxygen is a good thing for living organisms. That’s what you want to put in the water, not chlorine.”
However, the opposition to Measure I argue that the Davis-as-a-customer argument is simply a red herring: “Joining with West Sacramento is the project that Davis initially planned, and it is the project that makes the most sense. The argument that Davis will be “just a customer” of West Sacramento is a red herring. A right in perpetuity is more than sufficient.”
They argue, “Joining with West Sacramento would cost less than the Woodland-Davis project, even given the very conservative figures provided for the West Sacramento option, which included high contingencies compared with what seem to be an unrealistically low estimate for the Woodland-Davis project. The cost advantage will end up being huge with West Sacramento.”
“West Sacramento has invited Woodland to participate as well. West Sacramento believes that the long-term savings of a regional project will be very large, and we agree. Woodland can reject or accept this offer. We think, however, that Woodland eventually will come to understand that this is a win-win-win solution, but if it doesn’t, it is still definitely in Davis’ interest to join West Sacramento,” they continue.
They argue: “It makes no sense for two towns to each build a separate, redundant water supply system. This is too expensive. Furthermore, it is environmentally irresponsible and will have far-reaching, unanticipated consequences.”
They conclude: “Please remember that half of Davis households earn under $60,000. The cost of the Woodland-Davis project is unfair to the low-, moderate- and fixed-income Davis citizens who can’t afford it, especially senior citizens facing rising living expenses and medical costs. Extra costs are an unwelcome burden, especially for those struggling to feed, clothe and educate their children. Excessive and unnecessary debt for the Woodland-Davis project is the wrong choice.”
We tend to agree with the opposition that the “customer” issue is misplaced. A contract is a contract.
When the Vanguard interviewed the proponents, Elaine Roberts Musser argued, “The other problem with the West Sacramento option is that we’re a customer not a partner. That’s a problem.”
The concern is if West Sacramento continues to develop in the future, their development might put the city of Davis in conflict for the use of the water and their plant. At the same time, we do not understand how the city of West Sacramento could get out of a contract. More likely, they would simply opt to use some of the money from the sale of water to Davis, to increase the plant capacity.
However, the opposition ignores arguments about the water quality differential.
They also fail to note problems with securing the water rights.
West Sacramento, Alf Brandt said, would require the city to change their permits, which would take one to three years, then to build a pipeline, which would include a permit for a pipeline, through the wildlife refuge.
The city would have to use the railroad right of way to avoid the delta, “because if we build it through the causeway, that would take us right through the delta,” Mr. Brandt said. “That means we would have to go to the Delta Stewardship Council.”
The city would have to make the case that building a pipeline through the wetlands is consistent with the goals and purpose of the Delta plan.
“We would have to negotiate with West Sacramento which probably could be done,” he said, but that leaves the issues about water quality. “We can’t buy water from West Sacramento, we would have to bring our own water and have them treat it. They have a special water right that doesn’t apply to us.”
The savings issue is an interesting one.
The proponents argue that the West Sacramento option does not save the city a lot of money over the Woodland option. The numbers staff generated bear that out.
However, those numbers assume that Davis could not drive down the price through negotiations if they showed that they were serious about the West Sacramento option.
The trust issue, however, also comes into play as the opposition believes that the there is “an unrealistically low estimate for the Woodland-Davis project.”
They argue: “The cost advantage will end up being huge with West Sacramento.”
Staff estimated a cost differential of about 12.5 percent. However, that assumed the Woodland alternative would be $102.32 (with full cost sharing); instead it is $113 million compared with $90 million for the West Sacramento option.
Staff wrote: “Davis’ original negotiation strategy with West Sacramento hinged upon three key items: 1) a reduced connection fee of $6 million, down from West Sacramento’s original request of $12.656 million; and 2) a long-term 30-year contract with clauses regarding renewability; and 3) input and control of O&M and replacement costs allocated to the Davis portion of water use.”
West Sacramento’s counteroffer, staff writes, resulted in an increase in the connection fee by $6.7444 million instead of a reduction to $6 million.
What would be interesting to factor in is what the cost differentials are with the debt-servicing. Those costs push the project upwards of $280 million, perhaps more with the all-debt plan. How does that cost compare to the West Sacramento project? It is a question that might have been worth more analysis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks for this David….I hope the debate (still 2/2?) will concentrate on several of these “bullets” so we could hear back and forth. and wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had both types (cholinated and ozone treated) of water to taste in a blinded test….
FYI, gentle comment: The article would have been easier to read and understand if the op-ed quotes were indented and either italicized or smaller in order to separate them more from your comments. But thanks…
It is still 2/2, we will have the official announcement tomorrow morning.
Among the many misstatements of fact in the “NO” op-ed today, the use of the word “perpetual” to describe a deal we were offered from West Sac is beyond misleading. Perpetual, an adjective, is defined as “never ending or changing”. The contract being considered was for 30 years. That is hardly “perpetual”.
Perhaps the authors don’t know what “perpetual” means, or perhaps they think 30 years really is “forever”. But far more likely, they are trying to make the reader believe we were offered something from West Sac that we simply were not.
“It is a question that might have been worth more analysis.”
MIGHT? The debt-servicing is a critical piece of information which has been deliberately left out since it demonstrates that the West Sac option is significantly less costly. This is no surprise as we see staff in a “full-court press” to manipulate the Davis voters with a changing and confusing flood of numbers that are not particularly relevant to the “real-world”. Another valuable piece of information that might help lessen the mistrust now rampant among Davis voters would be a description(by Councilperson Lee) of his MULTIPLE back-and-forth negotiations with West Sac vigorously seeking workable compromise positions rather than what I suspect never did demonstrate West Sac’s belief(and mine) that what was then taking place was pure political theater by a Council and staff committed to pushing their Woodland plan through the resistance of their constituents. A NO on I vote by the Davis voters is the only path to demonstrate to West Sac that the voters demand that their Council and staff seriously pursue a deal with West Sac. The YES on I campaign, aided by city staff, are now in final-campaign mode and, deja-vu of the Measure X Covell Village campaign, the voters can expect an increasing flood of false and misleading “facts” by those who feel that the Davis voter needs to be manipulated into following the surface water path that THEY have decided is best(for whom?). For staff, changing course will involve more work on their part. For Council,changing course will also bring more work and confronting the interests of those with political “deep-pockets”. I thought that this what we PAID staff to do and what our Council reps were elected to do.
Will:
I don’t believe that information is the most accurate. The original offer by West Sacramento was indeed for 30 years. However, the Davis City council in exchange for increasing the connection fee, was able to get basically an indefinite offer.
“perhaps they think 30 years really is “forever”.”
My recollection was that the 30-40 year contract compared favorably with the requirement that the Woodland surface water plant would need to be “redone” in a similar time frame(perhaps sooner with the lower capacity of the current plan). An inviolate renewable contract provision can be negotiated with West Sac that might include Davis contributing towards any West Sac plant improvements and increased capacity at that time as part of the renewed contract.
“The cost for Davis to purchase [b][u]permanent capacity [/u][/b]is approximately $19.4 million for 12 million gallons per day. If Davis wished to purchase less capacity, it would be at the same rate of approximately $1.6 million per million gallons per day of demand,” A staff report from mid-October read.
My understanding is that the offer still included “renewals” after 30 years or so and that they could opt out after that time. Also, if Davis wanted a permanent right, we would have to pay West Sac the cost to increase the capacity of the water treatment plant to accommodate their demands for growth. In effect, we would have to promise to pay for any increase in capacity of the water treatment plant West Sac deemed necessary. In that eventuality, the West Sac option became much more expensive.
“MIGHT?”
Sarcasm.
This is what I see in the staff report from the WAC on October 18, 2012:
[quote]Davis’ original negotiation strategy with West Sacramento hinged upon three key items: 1) a reduced connection fee of $6 million, down from West Sacramento’s original request of $12.656 million; and 2) a long-term 30-year contract with clauses regarding renewability; and 3) input and control of O&M and replacement costs allocated to the Davis portion of water use.
West Sacramento’s counter offer resulted in an increase of the connection fee $6.744 million to $19.4 million instead of a reduction to $6 million. West Sacramento’s offer to incrementally sell Davis supply at $1.6 million/mgd does not result in any cost savings. While West Sacramento’s
offer to treat Davis similar to any customer in order to consider this a permanent source of supply removes the need for a long-term contract, it eliminates Davis’ ability to negotiate a rate and removes any ability to control rate impacts and increases.[/quote]
So I read that as permanent, with no 30 year renewals or opt outs.
“However, the Davis City council in exchange for increasing the connection fee, was able to get basically an indefinite offer.”
Is this an accurate description of the “negotiations”? I thought that it was described as West Sac making the offer which Davis then rejected.
Brett Lee and Joe Krovoza sat down and discussed with West Sac and West Sac altered their offer.
Point of fact conceded. I pulled it up as well. Though I believe it is crucial to include the paragraph in between the two you posted:
[quote]West Sacramento’s offer to treat Davis similar to any customer in order to consider this a permanent source of cupply removes the need for a long-term contract. However, it eliminates Davis’ ability to negotiate a rate and removes any ability to control rate impacts and increases. If West Sacramento were to elect to contract out their operations and maintenance, or privatize the utility, Davis’ status as a customer, would not allow any more say in the decisions, than any other residential or commercial customer within West Sacramento’s service area.[/quote]
*supply
here we go again…..to me there is black, there is white. How can this whole issue have so many points that appear to have both sides?
I believe the frustration with that might tip a number of voters to the no side….and that is why I am looking forward to the debate where I hope a number of issues can be debated into either the black or the white columns. It will take a skilled format and moderation.
[quote]to me there is black, there is white. How can this whole issue have so many points that appear to have both sides? [/quote]
This is to me a fascinating statement since it so clearly epitomizes how differently people see the world.
For me, except in the most simple of circumstances, there is no black and white, but shades of gray. For almost any complex issue, there will be pros and cons to any course of action. Life is full of nuances and there are always subtle differences in values and unintended consequences to be taken into account.
I also am looking forward to the forum but not for the same reason as SODA. I do not believe that for me there will be any clear elucidation of black and white, or the good guys and the bad guys, but perhaps there may be greater clarity regarding the pros and cons of each course of action.
An area of discussion should be what legal and State(Water Board) protections from exploitation that Davis would likely have,in terms of the cost of West Sac water, when we are hooked up to West Sac as our surface water supplier. I would guess that they would be significant.
medwoman: appreciate the comment. Yes, gray is always there, but in this case and particularly in the posts that provoked me to write, the “30 yr then need renewal VS in perpetuity” argument to me is black and white, one or the other. It isnt gray, let’s say 45 yrs, it is one or the other. Is that clearer? I think our goals for the debate are more similar than you state (and I look forward to guessing who you are!)
“greater clarity regarding pros and cons” to me will give me focus as to what is true and what is not and will affect my vote. Now the list of pros and cons seem so open to argument and convolution…..
[i]perhaps somewhat more if we end up having to drill more deep wells.
[/i]
We can drill as many ‘more deep wells’ as we like, but we cannot remove any more water from them than we are currently doing. We are at the maximum allowable use of deep water right now.
[i]Joining with West Sacramento
[/i]
When I go buy something, I am not “joining with” the vendor. We would be joining with Woodland. We would be customers of West Sacramento.
[i]The concern is if West Sacramento continues to develop in the future
[/i]
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/growthratesDavisWdldWestSac.png[/img]
West Sacramento’s water rights do not allow them to sell any water for use outside of West Sacramento. Davis’ water rights do not allow us to pull our water from the location of the West Sacramento plant. Both of these may be changed, however the [b]best case[/b] estimate is 3-5 years, and that only if there are no significant challenges/complaints.
According to the data that Matt shared with us, Davis will begin to experience water shortages starting in 2017, and we all know (or should by now) that we need to be in full compliance with the Clean Water Act in 2016. Construction on a pipeline from West Sacramento to Davis will take up to 2 years, but cannot start until we have an approved environmental impact report. The environmental impact report cannot be completed until we have proven rights to the water.
Now let’s do the math. It is January 2013. If we started today, the earliest we can anticipate having secured water rights to draw water from West Sacramento will be sometime between January 2016 and January 2018. Let us assume that the EIR was already in progress, and that there are no serious objections to the final draft, we may be able to get an approved EIR by the following summer, but more likely the next year. So, construction begins at the earliest sometime between July 2016 and January 2019, giving us water to use sometime between 2018 and 2021.
At that point we will have experienced 1-3 years of water shortages, and faced 2-5 years of fines for failure to comply with the Clean Water Act. As an aside, by 2016 we will already have been out of compliance (otherwise known as ‘breaking the law’) for more than 10 years.
The West Sacramento option cannot meet our needs. At best, it will come 2-5 years later than we need in order for us to stop polluting the Delta as we are required to do. This rosy scenario assumes that there are no serious challenges to:
1. Changing either the location of use of the West Sacramento water rights, or the location of withdrawal of the Davis rights.
2. No challenge to the Environmental Impact Report.
In my opinion, only a fool would believe that these won’t face serious challenge. Water Rights changes are never easy, and since we are talking about drawing water from the Delta, the number of interested parties (including those with very deep pockets) will become significant. 3-5 years for this process is a very rosy prediction, and we should not be surprised if it becomes 10-15 years, with millions of dollars in legal fees. The same can be said for the EIR, with the most likely challengers being our very own ‘NO on Everything’ crowd.
West Sacramento is not a viable option. Anyone pushing the West Sacramento option is in truth arguing for no surface water for Davis.
[i]Davis does not need a surface water project to meet city wastewater discharge requirements. By managing our groundwater appropriately, we can meet our discharge requirements at relatively minimal cost.[/i]
Only by going almost entirely to the deep wells. That will solve the selenium problem, but not others. And we cannot increase our pumping from the deep wells. As the shallower wells go off-line (due to age and water quality problems) we will have less and less water capacity. In 2017 we will be unable to meet peak capacity.
[i]our drinking water soon will be drawn entirely from the deeper, high-quality levels.[/i]
This is a misrepresentation of the quality of the deep water. It has less selenium. It is equal or higher in boron. It has more arsenic and more chromium-6. Those three are among several things in the water, both shallow and deep, that the state is increasingly regulating.
[i]There is no credible evidence that we have a supply problem.[/i]
There most certainly is. We cannot increase our pumping from the deep wells, and we will be losing or retiring the shallower ones. That equals less water.
[i] It makes no sense for two towns to each build a separate, redundant water supply system.[/i]
Agreed. So let’s move forward with the Davis-Woodland project and get higher-quality water. “In perpetuity,” to borrow the term.
SODA
Thanks for your clarification. I was clearly too fast in over generalizing your comment to the entire issue.
I do have one limited objection however to the idea that even the “30 year vs perpetuity” is completely black and white. That is because of the seemingly never ending capacity of those in our legal system to attempt to parse words beyond any reasonable degree in order to benefit either themselves or those who hire them to do so. I think that the idea that “a contract is a contract” is far too simplistic a view and that many seemingly air tight contracts become challenged at great cost to those who thought they were protected.
This is absurd, there is no West Sac deal on the table. After looking at it thoroughly the leaders of our community went with the JPA. So what the opponents are really saying is let’s go back to square one. I say let’s move forward to get the best, most reliable water system we can. Yes on I.
“there is no West Sac deal on the table.”
that’s kind of a pointless statement. there was an offer from west sacramento, if davis were serious about the offer, they could reach and revisit it. right now, davis is not serious about, but if the measure i is voted down, the game changes.
[i]but if the measure i is voted down, the game changes.
[/i]
How so? You think the terms of the “deal” will change or improve if the Davis voters reject the Woodland-Davis project?
“. Davis’ water rights do not allow us to pull our water from the location of the West Sacramento plant. Both of these may be changed, however the best case estimate is 3-5 years”
A 3-5 yr. delay,if it actually materializes, would not be a problem for Davis. It is the arm-twisting of Woodland that is creating the current pressures to act now. As for water transfers of Davis’ rights to the West Sac plant, my understanding is that current State water policy strongly supports such transfers when it maximizes the best use of California’s water resources.
davisite2: “[i]A 3-5 yr. delay,if it actually materializes, would not be a problem for Davis.[/i]”
We face fines in 3 years, and expected water shortages in 4. How exactly is that not a problem for Davis?
3-5 years is not the expected delay in the project, it is simply the time to to transfer the water rights under the best case scenario. This doesn’t count the time for EIR (putting a pipeline through a wetland won’t be controversial at all) or construction.
“We face fines in 3 years”
The above is a good example the scare tactics being promoted. There is little chance of fines if we are clearly moving towards meeting the current standards. The probability of more stringent standards with the accompanying increased cost to cities does not appear to be politically palatable what with city coffers being empty, voter incomes flat or in decline and the State unable to contribute significantly to help pay for water system upgrades.
davisite2: “The above is a good example the scare tactics being promoted.”
No, just a fact.
“[i]There is little chance of fines if we are clearly moving towards meeting the current standards.[/i]”
Tell that to the Cities already paying fines.
While you are at it, please explain how we have been ‘clearly moving toward meeting the current standards’ if we vote down the only viable option that will bring us into compliance by the deadline?
“[i]The probability of more stringent standards with the accompanying increased cost to cities does not appear to be politically palatable what with city coffers being empty, voter incomes flat or in decline and the State unable to contribute significantly to help pay for water system upgrades.[/i]”
The Clean Water Act is a Federal regulation administered by the State. Fines are not optional and there is little leeway in their application. Davis has already been given more than 10 years to bring our system into compliance since we were declared non-compliant. Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t change reality.
[quote]Tell that to the Cities already paying fines.
[/quote]
I am sure that this is information that I have seen, probably on this blog before. But I think that either Mark or Don, if you could post again what cities are currently being assessed fines, and the time line if you know it between when they were declared non compliant and when their fines were implemented, it might encourage those who see this as a scare tactic to make a more realistic evaluation of the possibility that this could happen in Davis as well.
[url]www.appeal-democrat.com/common/printer/view.php?db=marysville&id=122564[/url]
Linda Water District hit with $123,000 in fines
By Griffin Rogers/ADgriffinrogers
2013-01-13 22:51:11
The Linda County Water District has been hit with $123,000 in penalties this month after accumulating more
than 40 violations at its wastewater treatment plant in an 18-month period.
The district faces the fines imposed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for 41
violations for its inability to meet wastewater standards between December 2010 and August 2012.
The majority of the district’s violations, resulting in fines of about $3,000 each, were for not meeting mandatory pH limits….
—–
[url]http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9050[/url]
Campus to Pay Wastewater Penalty
March 17, 2009
UC Davis will pay a mandatory penalty of $27,000 to the California Water Quality Control Board for violations of effluent limits at the campus’s wastewater treatment plant between April and December 2008.
The violations, technically described as “non-serious violations,” were triggered automatically when effluent samples slightly exceeded the monthly limits for electrical conductivity set by the wastewater discharge permit then in force.
Two weeks ago:
[url]http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_22360402/woodland-davis-uc-davis-fined-violating-states-clean[/url]
Woodland, Davis, UC Davis fined for violating state’s clean water act
Created: 01/12/2013 06:14:07 AM PST
Woodland, Davis and UC Davis are among 12 cities and agencies fined “mandatory minimum penalties” for violating the state’s clean water guidelines.
The fines were issued this week by the executive officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
In all, some $663,000 in Administrative Civil Liability Complaints across the Central Valley were issued. None of the fines locally were unexpected. Woodland, for example, is building a new treatment facility to avoid even steeper fines.
Woodland faces $45,000 in penalties for violations of selenium, ammonia, and coliform effluent limits. The 15 violations occurred between April 2011 and June 2012 at the city’s Water Pollution Control Facility.
Treated wastewater is discharged to Tule Canal within the Yolo Bypass.
Similar fines were levied earlier in 2011 for very much the same reasons.
The city of Davis faces $3,000 in penalties for a violation of the chlorine effluent limit at its wastewater treatment plant. The violation occurred in the period between August 2010 and September 2012.
Treated municipal wastewater is discharged to either the Willow Slough Bypass or the Conaway Ranch Toe Drain, which are tributaries to the Yolo Bypass.
Meanwhile, UC Davis faces $3,000 in penalties for a violation of ammonia effluent limit at its Main Wastewater Treatment Plant. The violation occurred sometime between October 2010 and August 2012. Treated municipal wastewater is discharged to the South
Fork of Putah Creek in Yolo County.