By Joe Krovoza
On Tuesday, March 5, all ballots are due to the Yolo County elections office for a “yea” or “nay” on Measure I – a binding vote on whether or not Davis should proceed with a joint regional surface water supply project with Woodland. What’s the plan? Draw new surface water from the Sacramento River north of I-5’s overcrossing, treat it, and use it as our primary source of water.
The driver for the project is a groundwater basin that is degrading, primarily in its quality. This is problematic since both cities rely entirely on groundwater. The degradation is now serious enough that Woodland has been fined for wastewater discharge violation. Davis must anticipate the same.
We have stretched our total dependence on roundwater beyond any reasonable definition of sustainability. We struggle to maintain the quality of our 20 wells. For Davis’ population of 65,000, the “mop and bucket” approach to well maintenance is increasingly costly. Just this week we were forced to shut off a “high quality” deep well based upon manganese concentrations. In 2010, we spent $2.6 million to treat for manganese at another well – and two more face similar fates. That’s potentially $10 million for one constituent at just four sites. Reports mount of pending state regulations of Chromium 6 (think Erin Brockovich) at levels that will affect over half of our wells.
Diminishing groundwater quality leads to higher treatment costs. The water quality into our system from our 14 intermediate aquifer wells makes complying with wastewater discharge regulations increasingly difficult. Diminished water quality into our system comes as high concentrations of salts, selenium, boron, Chromium 6, nitrates, manganese and arsenic. At our wastewater plant, salt and selenium are costly to remove. Without removal, these constituents have adverse environmental impacts on waterways and wetlands.
Six city wells tap the deep aquifer. Some say we should increase the draw – or proceed to full dependence – on the higher-quality deep aquifer. UC Davis hydrogeologist Graham Fogg advises that we proceed with great caution, stating, “Concentrating more groundwater in the deep aquifer will only accelerate the downward movement of contaminated groundwater toward the deep aquifer. In other words, just because the deep aquifer is deep does not mean it is invulnerable to contamination.”
When the deep aquifer fails, what’s the likelihood of Davis quickly finding a new source of water at an affordable price in water-starved California? And when quality is the main issue, conservation alone can’t be the answer.
New surface water supplemented by our highest quality wells will decrease concentrations of salt and selenium in our wastewater, reduce the cost of wastewater discharge, and offset our over-dependence on the intermediate and deep aquifers. We can then use low-quality well water for parks irrigation. Sacramento River water available in the winter can be stored in the aquifer for summer use. Our new project will allow flexible, smart water management.
Yes, water rates will triple with the project. But, they will double with or without the project. Sans project, it will be costly to maintain our antiquated infrastructure, not to mention paying fines.
We have worked diligently to identify economies to reduce project costs. Sharing all costs with Woodland, and with Conaway Ranch for the river intake, saves Davis $30 million or more. The current economic climate for competitive construction bids and financing is excellent. Federal and state matching funds are coming together nicely for this multi-city, ag-urban collaboration.
The cities will own and control the project. We plan to contract out for the plant’s operation – with a full ability to cancel the contract if there are problems, or buy out the contract early if we so choose. In the meantime, costs will be lower and ratepayers will have greater certainty. Privatization problems in other communities are protected against in our contract.
Project detractors have helped us find a better solution. Following a successful 2011 referendum, we hit the pause button to fully evaluate all pros and cons. A West Sacramento option was studied and dismissed. Our citizen-led Water Advisory Committee trimmed $26 million from the project to reduce costs to $114 million; recommended a rate structure that will ensure increased conservation; and confirmed the design, construction and operation strategies for cost reduction. The committee voted overwhelmingly to recommend the project as the best strategy for long-term fiscal and environmental sustainability.
As is laudable and common in Davis, direct democracy will rule the day. This enormous decision is now in the hands of voters. Yes on Measure I is our chance to diversify our water holdings and provide clean water reliably and securely for current residents and future generations.
The issue of declining water quality is a red herring. The more we use water from the deep aquifer, the better our water quality is in terms of salts and, as a result, the better is our discharge water. We do not need river water to achieve good quality water and to meet any future discharge standards.
There is an excellent forum piece in last night’s Davis Enterprise by Ali Ghorbanzadeh. Mr. Ghorbanzadeh has his PhD in groundwater hydraulics from UCD. He has worked for more than 30 years in the areas of water supply and water quality for the State Department of Water Resources. He states, “Davis has always complied with the federal Environmental Protection Agency standards. The city has never violated water quality standards.”
On the issue of sustainability of our aquifers, a report by Brown and Caldwell Engineers, Phase II Deep Aquifer Study of July 2005, states “The fact that water levels in deep and intermediate wells rebound seasonally indicates that recharge is currently adequate to offset pumping—–Because the average water levels in deep wells do not appear to be decreasing over time, recharge is in approximate equilibrium with extractions from the deep aquifer.” We also know from other data that our deep aquifer does readily recharge.
UCD Hydro-Geologist Graham Fogg in a review in October 2011 also states “[T]he groundwater levels appear to be recovering more or less fully every year following the dry season, indicating it [the aquifer] is not yet in overdraft with respect to water quantity”—-“The changes in ground water quality will not be sudden, but will likely continue on a decades to century time scale.”
We do not know at this point how much water there is in our deep aquifer, because we have not done the studies. These studies should be done. There are many indications, however, that we do have time to explore a more cost-effective, appropriate project for Davis and to develop a fair and affordable rate structure.
We should vote “no” on Measure I to allow the city time to come back with a better project for Davis.
[quote]”Davis has always complied with the federal Environmental Protection Agency standards. The city has never violated water quality standards.”[/quote]
The problem is not the past, it is the waste-water quality standards coming in the near future. And it is not the EPA, it is the state water board.
[quote] “The fact that water levels in deep and intermediate wells rebound seasonally indicates that recharge is currently adequate to offset pumping—–Because the average water levels in deep wells do not appear to be decreasing over time, recharge is in approximate equilibrium with extractions from the deep aquifer.”[/quote]
Except that we have roughly quintupled the pumping since that report.
[quote] There are many indications, however, that we do have time to explore a more cost-effective, appropriate project for Davis and to develop a fair and affordable rate structure.[/quote]
Numerous alternatives have been considered and rejected. The only alternative opponents continue to promote is the West Sacramento option. That has problems, not the least of which is that West Sacramento is not interested in pursuing it on the terms that the city council wanted.
We don’t really have time. Our current trajectory has us removing the high-selenium intermediate wells from use, relying entirely on six deep wells running 24/7. As has become quite clear, those wells can have problems. We would have a very narrow margin of error. The result of well failure or conflict with UCD wells would be sudden loss of capacity.
I don’t know why the proponents of this project continue to beat the same drum: horror stories about water quality even in the face of expert testimony to the contrary. All constituents in Davis’ water are well within all state and federal standards, and with increased use of deep aquifer water, that will only get better. Look at the City’s own annual water quality reports! This is confirmed. And as we use more deep aquifer water, which contains no salts or detectable selenium, we will be able to meet all future discharge standards.
The deep aquifer recharges from run-off from the coast range and from rain fall. It is not a finite pool of water that we are removing forever. It continually recharges, providing us with a source of high quality water. Experts cited above and others have testified to the long-term viability of the deep aquifer.
The bottom line is that we do have time to work as a community on a project that is fair and affordable for our community and to develop a fair and affordable rate structure. Not even our city council can explaing the current structure.
There is no need to rush this project through. We have time to look at alternatives including West Sacramento, which will want to negotiate with Davis once they are assured Davis is serious about the negotiations.
For the good of our community, we should vote this project down and make the city come back with a project that is fair to our community.
[quote]I don’t know why the proponents of this project continue to beat the same drum: horror stories about water quality even in the face of expert testimony to the contrary.
All constituents in Davis’ water are well within all state and federal standards, and with increased use of deep aquifer water, that will only get better.[/quote]
That statement is false. Once again, it is the pending water quality standards that are at issue. Our water does not currently meet the selenium standards that are coming down shortly. In order to meet them, we will have to go almost entirely to the deep wells, through six wells running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
[quote]Look at the City’s own annual water quality reports! This is confirmed. And as we use more deep aquifer water, which contains no salts or detectable selenium,[/quote]
It is not true that the deep water “contains no salts or detectable selenium.”
Here are test results. UCD = deep wells.
Here are some examples of the differences between City of Davis water, UC Davis water, and Sacramento surface water:
Hardness:
Davis303
UCD123
Sacramento57
Calcium
Davis34
UCD17
Sacramento15
Magnesium
Davis54
UCD19
Sacramento3.4
total dissolved solids
Davis520
UCD323
Sacramento97
[quote]we will be able to meet all future discharge standards.[/quote]
False.
[quote]The deep aquifer recharges from run-off from the coast range and from rain fall. It is not a finite pool of water that we are removing forever. It continually recharges, providing us with a source of high quality water.[/quote]
Quick question, Wolf: what is the age of the water we are drawing from the deep wells? You have actually no idea that it “continually recharges.” We have vastly increased our pumping from the deep aquifer in the last few years. We have no evidence that such pumping is sustainable.
[quote]Experts cited above and others have testified to the long-term viability of the deep aquifer. [/quote]
The experts before the WAC did not consider the deep aquifer a sustainable source.
[quote]The bottom line is that we do have time to work as a community on a project that is fair and affordable for our community and to develop a fair and affordable rate structure.[/quote]
The current project is a result of years of work by community members, over a year of hearings before a community-based committee, and has the support of nearly every civic leader and the vast majority of experts. The rate structure was developed by citizen volunteers. The opposition has practically no support from civic leaders and very little in the way of expert support. The opponents refer to ‘working as a community’, but that is exactly what was done to develop this proposal.
[quote]There is no need to rush this project through. We have time to look at alternatives including West Sacramento, which will want to negotiate with Davis once they are assured Davis is serious about the negotiations.[/quote]
Rush? This project has been under discussion for years! This is the Sue Greenwald myth: that West Sacramento will be incentivized to change their previous negotiating position if the voters reject the JPA. Sure, they’ll sell to us. They’ve stated the price. They’ve stated the terms. We will have no leverage.
[quote]For the good of our community, we should vote this project down and make the city come back with a project that is fair to our community.[/quote]
Like most project opponents, you present no alternative except the discredited West Sacramento option.
Joe, please tell your guys to stood calling me to remind me to vote. i just voted!!
stop. ..
“The fact that water levels in deep and intermediate wells rebound seasonally indicates that recharge is currently adequate to offset pumping—–Because the average water levels in deep wells do not appear to be decreasing over time, recharge is in approximate equilibrium with extractions from the deep aquifer.”
Hey Wolf, what part of “currently adequate” and “in approximate equilibrium” are you not understanding? The English is fairly straightforward. It means pumping at that quantity is sustainable. Yet, you are advocating that we pump at significantly greater amounts, i.e. at non-sustainable levels.
Your citations undermine your own argument, which has been the insurmountable problem that the NOE crowd has had all along.
-Michael Bisch