Breaking News
Home
City of Davis
Water

Tracing the recent history of the water supply project

Posted by
Date:
in: Water
(20) Comments
229 Views
A review of a variety of staff reports, public workshop notes, and newspaper articles reveals a rather interesting labyrinth of policies that have led us from the council approved recommendations of the 2002 Water Supply Study to the current policy and trajectory of policy that is far more expansive and more expensive then the original course of action.

In September of 2002, Council by a 3-2 vote approved Alternative 5 of the 2002 Water Feasibility Study.

“Alternative 5. Increase treatment capacity at Bryte Bend to supply treated surface water to meet average day and most of maximum day demands. Pump groundwater as needed to meet the remaining demands. Treat groundwater as needed to satisfy project objectives. Under this alternative, water from the Sacramento River would be treated at Bryte Bend and pumped to Davis/UC Davis. The capacity of Bryte Bend would be increased to approximately 90 mgd to meet Davis/UC Davis average day demands and approximately 75 percent of the maximum day demands… To take advantage of existing groundwater pumping capacity, the remaining demands would be met with groundwater pumped from the deep aquifer wells. Peak hour demands and fire flow would be met from above ground storage reservoirs.”

In a continuing mantra, Councilmember Ted Puntillo was quoted in the Davis Enterprise saying, “If we don’t act, we’re going to be put in the back of the bus there, and I don’t know if we’ll ever get to the front again.” In fact, during this year’s workshop on January 23, 2007, we would hear similar statements, this time from city staff and water consultants.

The two dissenting votes caste at this time were by Councilwoman Sue Greenwald and Councilman Mike Harrington.

Greenwald sought to gather more information about the deep aquifer option—an alternative she also pushed in this year’s meeting.

You will also notice that currently Alternative 5 is no longer the operational plan. Apparently somewhere along the way, West Sacramento opted out of that option as we find out—they needed the capacity for themselves given their massive growth. The plan now is Alternative 7, which as far as I can tell no one has ever actually caste a vote on. This was the worst case scenario at the time in 2002 and by far the most expensive of the options. West Sacramento’s massive growth is going to end up costing Davis ratepayers quite a bit of money.

“Alternative 7. Supply all demands using treated surface water from a new Sacramento River diversion and a new water treatment plant… Under this alternative, water from the Sacramento River would be diverted from a location north of the existing diversion point for Bryte Bend and would be pumped to Davis/UC Davis. A transmission pipeline would be constructed to convey water from this location to Davis/UC Davis… A new water treatment plant would be constructed near Davis with a capacity of approximately 50 mgd, and would meet Davis/UC Davis average day and maximum day demands. Peak hour and fire flows would be met with above ground storage reservoirs.”

Just how did we get there? Following the maze of public hearings, newspaper articles, and staff reports, a picture begins to emerge–it happened in small increments based on decisions to implement MOUs and EIRs of studies rather than actual votes of authorization on an overall plan.

Just over a year later, in September 2003, the West Sacramento plan was still underway. The Davis Enterprise reported on September 29, 2003:

“Financial, political and structural analyses are the next steps, as Davis, UC Davis and West Sacramento staff continue to explore the possibility of piping Sacramento River water to Davis by way of West Sacramento’s water treatment plant, players in the discussions say.

The quality of the water that leaves West Sacramento’s treatment plant is much higher than Davis’, said Jacques DeBra, a Davis water specialist. Its successes include more user satisfaction, fewer water softeners and less use of bottled water, he said.

The three entities are working on a mutual agreement and looking at the feasibility of the project, which is one of several options Davis and UCD officials spent two years researching for the community’s future water supply. The Davis City Council, along with UCD officials, decided last year to look at supplying the community with water from rivers as well as from underground in the future.”

By November 6, 2003, a Davis city council vote authorized Woodland to be added to an MOU along with the City of Davis and UC Davis to do a deep aquifer study. That was passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Mike Harrington dissenting. (Remember Greenwald’s preferred option was always the deep aquifer route so naturally she went along with this part of the project).

The aquifer study was approved on a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Mike Harrington dissenting. Harrington believes the study is linked to a growth-induced need for more water capacity, rather than just a search for higher-quality water.

“Instead of focusing on demand reduction,” he said Tuesday, “we’re focusing on (increasing) supply.”

However, as the Davis Enterprise noted, the West Sacramento plan was still alive:

“In addition to the aquifer study, Davis and UCD will continue working with West Sacramento officials toward piping Sacramento River water to Davis years from now for use on campus and in town, if that is feasible. If the project pencils out for all parties, the water would be pumped through West Sacramento‘s water treatment plant on its way to Davis. If the project were completed, the river water would be the primary source in Davis, with groundwater supplementing it when needed.”

This would be the last time we see the West Sacramento facility and option 5 mentioned in the public record.

On May 19, 2004, we see an Amendment No.2 added to the Consultant Agreement with West Yost and Associates for the Water Supply Feasibility Study. This officially added Woodland to “some” of the alternatives.

From the May 19, 2004 staff report:

“The City Council approved the recommendations from the 2002 Water Supply Feasibility Study. Implementation requires preliminary engineering support to accomplish initial milestones leading up to authorizing the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This scope of work will study, to the same level as the feasibility study, options that would involve the City of Woodland that could be included in the EIR process. This provides the city with more options to study and evaluate in the project EIR. This approach ensures that the final project alternative would be covered in the EIR given the challenge of options involving other agencies.”

To this point we have mostly focused on the supply portion of the water issue, it is important to note that in June of 2005, comes the alarming development that the wastewater treatment costs were going to be considerably higher than originally projected. The problem with wastewater is that while the water supply is mainly okay for various elements and compounds, the supply end at times exceeds the allowed standards for some things like selenium.

From the June 15, 2005 Davis Enterprise:

“Price tag estimates for the Davis project have increased dramatically during the past several months, as engineers have gotten a better idea of what is needed in the plant upgrade. It will be funded primarily by increasing sewer rates, and the project has already triggered increased rates in recent years.

For several months, public works representatives said an upgrade would cost at least $50 million.

“We now know that, sadly, that’s probably not it by half,” Public Works Director Bob Weir said in May, when the council raised sewer rates.”

How much more? Try $140 to $150 million dollars instead of the original estimate of $50 million.

The article also quotes then-Woodland Mayor Matt Rexroad:

“It’s a relatively easy retrofit for us, but not for Davis… We were between a rock and a hard place. Davis is between a rock and a mountain.”

On July 15, 2005, the council approved an MOU to complete a Project EIR report and authorizing West Yost and Associates to provide engineering services in support of the Project environmental process. This staff report pushed the advantages of the regional MOU approach–that would be Woodland, UC Davis, and the city of Davis.

By this point it was clear that the city of Davis had moved away from the approved Alternative 5 which was to expand an existing facility in West Sacramento.

By May 11, 2006, the plan with West Sacramento appeared to be officially dead.

From the Davis Enterprise:

“Officials and water experts in Davis, Woodland and at UC Davis are working on a project that they say would give their customers a more reliable, higher-quality water source. They are beginning the official environmental study for the project and will host two public workshops this month.

Today, all three water purveyors supply their customers with ground water. As demand increases and wells run deeper, there is little way of knowing how much water is available, sources say. In addition, ground water has minerals that build up on faucets and in pipes and pose problems for quality, both in using the water, and in meeting treatment standards for water that runs through the sewers from homes and businesses.

For a decade, the cities and UCD have studied options for treating surface water and sending it through pipes to their customers. At one time, they talked with water experts in West Sacramento about using that city’s treatment plant. Jacques DeBra with the city of Davis said this week West Sacramento’s growth means it will need its treatment plant capacity.

The plan now is for Davis, Woodland and UCD to draw water from the Sacramento River, send it through pipes to a shared treatment plant they would build, then distribute it to the three areas.”

Little discussion was made of this change or the fact that they were de facto moving onto alternative No.7 deemed the worst case-scenario in the 2002 feasibility study and moreover, it was by far the most expensive option. There was little-to-no revisiting of alternatives or the suggestion that perhaps the city should restudy the issue. In fact, from our review of the history, the Woodland joint project appears to be the trajectory to which the city of Davis had been moving for a considerable amount of time, well before the West Sacramento plan was officially dead.

So we now have the worst case scenario—where we build an entirely new facility, including a new intake facility. Meanwhile the staff last week tried to avoid the tough questions of Mayor Sue Greenwald as she tried to ascertain whether or not there were alternatives and the staff became locked in to alternatives—aided and abetted along the way by the council Majority of Saylor and Asmundson.

The projections right now are for the wastewater treatment plant to be around $150 million and according to the presentation, the costs for the new water supply project would be $300 million with Davis’ share being around $150 million. This is very important for people to understand, at the time Alternative 5 was passed in 2002, the costs for Alternative 7 versus Alternative 5 would be about twice the initial projections. That’s just over a five year time period. So when you see that both projects are projected at around $300 million combined for the city of Davis, you might consider those as low estimates and think about the real cost being considerably higher. We are talking in the neighborhood of around $100 per month for the average family for water alone.

A couple of additional points that need to be raised here. First, according to a person with good working knowledge of the water system, the intermediate aquifer has never failed to recharge. That aquifer provides all the water a city of the population of around 68,000 needs with about 15,000 or so acre feet a year.

The new plan calls for Davis’ share of the new water to be the rights to another 20,000 acre feet. And by the way, this is winter water and the time when we need the water help is during the summer.

So why do we need to double our water? Are we planning to grow to 140,000? At our current growth rate it would take 100 years to get to 140,000 and our water rights would expire by 2040.

This is a huge expense and the staff has not proven the need and has dodged the tough questions every time they have been pushed on this issue.

A final point, the point has been made that we need to “keep our place in line.” But what has not been discussed is how much money we have spent to do that. Just looking at the outlays since 2002, it appears we have spent well over $1 million just to keep our place in line by expending money on the various studies and EIRs. In the total process since 1992 or whenever the process began, we may have spent as much as twice that. That’s just the cost of keeping us in our place in line. We have not even broken ground work on this project yet.

The costs of both the supply and treatment end have at least doubled since 2002. That needs to be kept in mind. Will these current estimates be correct? Or are we looking at even more increase in cost? I would suspect we are looking at even more unanticipated cost.

Last week’s workshop was informative, but it was really a discussion that assumed we were going forward this option rather than one that proposed we continue to look at alternative options. I think Davis residents who will be facing at least triple their current rates ought to look very serious at the need for water given current population growth projections.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

20 Comments

  1. davisite

    There may be a fundamental problem with process that was also illustrated recently when the issue of spraying came to a head last summer. The people affected( being sprayed or paying the bills) are entitled to have alternatives FULLY VETTED WITH TRANSPARANCY. Consultants with excellent credentials who “favor” alterantive proposals(complex issues like mosquito spraying and water/wastewater treatment usually can be legitimately approached in several ways) need to be hired as part of the process. These credible narratives need to be presented to our council and the public-at-large with their positive and negative features fully explored. The Davis Public Works Department has approached this issue with political timidity and stealth, aided and abetted by the our last two council majorities.

  2. davisite

    There may be a fundamental problem with process that was also illustrated recently when the issue of spraying came to a head last summer. The people affected( being sprayed or paying the bills) are entitled to have alternatives FULLY VETTED WITH TRANSPARANCY. Consultants with excellent credentials who “favor” alterantive proposals(complex issues like mosquito spraying and water/wastewater treatment usually can be legitimately approached in several ways) need to be hired as part of the process. These credible narratives need to be presented to our council and the public-at-large with their positive and negative features fully explored. The Davis Public Works Department has approached this issue with political timidity and stealth, aided and abetted by the our last two council majorities.

  3. davisite

    There may be a fundamental problem with process that was also illustrated recently when the issue of spraying came to a head last summer. The people affected( being sprayed or paying the bills) are entitled to have alternatives FULLY VETTED WITH TRANSPARANCY. Consultants with excellent credentials who “favor” alterantive proposals(complex issues like mosquito spraying and water/wastewater treatment usually can be legitimately approached in several ways) need to be hired as part of the process. These credible narratives need to be presented to our council and the public-at-large with their positive and negative features fully explored. The Davis Public Works Department has approached this issue with political timidity and stealth, aided and abetted by the our last two council majorities.

  4. davisite

    There may be a fundamental problem with process that was also illustrated recently when the issue of spraying came to a head last summer. The people affected( being sprayed or paying the bills) are entitled to have alternatives FULLY VETTED WITH TRANSPARANCY. Consultants with excellent credentials who “favor” alterantive proposals(complex issues like mosquito spraying and water/wastewater treatment usually can be legitimately approached in several ways) need to be hired as part of the process. These credible narratives need to be presented to our council and the public-at-large with their positive and negative features fully explored. The Davis Public Works Department has approached this issue with political timidity and stealth, aided and abetted by the our last two council majorities.

  5. Don Shor

    Thanks for digging deeper on this issue.

    “By November 6, 2003, a Davis city council vote authorized Woodland to be added to an MOU along with the City of Davis and UC Davis to do a deep aquifer study.”
    I thought that was what Sue was asking for in the earlier post. Was it ever done?

    “We are talking in the neighborhood of around $100 per month for the average family for water alone.”
    The rates charged are a political decision, and can be set any way the council chooses. Tiered consumption rates based on metered use are most logical.

  6. Don Shor

    Thanks for digging deeper on this issue.

    “By November 6, 2003, a Davis city council vote authorized Woodland to be added to an MOU along with the City of Davis and UC Davis to do a deep aquifer study.”
    I thought that was what Sue was asking for in the earlier post. Was it ever done?

    “We are talking in the neighborhood of around $100 per month for the average family for water alone.”
    The rates charged are a political decision, and can be set any way the council chooses. Tiered consumption rates based on metered use are most logical.

  7. Don Shor

    Thanks for digging deeper on this issue.

    “By November 6, 2003, a Davis city council vote authorized Woodland to be added to an MOU along with the City of Davis and UC Davis to do a deep aquifer study.”
    I thought that was what Sue was asking for in the earlier post. Was it ever done?

    “We are talking in the neighborhood of around $100 per month for the average family for water alone.”
    The rates charged are a political decision, and can be set any way the council chooses. Tiered consumption rates based on metered use are most logical.

  8. Don Shor

    Thanks for digging deeper on this issue.

    “By November 6, 2003, a Davis city council vote authorized Woodland to be added to an MOU along with the City of Davis and UC Davis to do a deep aquifer study.”
    I thought that was what Sue was asking for in the earlier post. Was it ever done?

    “We are talking in the neighborhood of around $100 per month for the average family for water alone.”
    The rates charged are a political decision, and can be set any way the council chooses. Tiered consumption rates based on metered use are most logical.

  9. Dave Hart

    So what we’re looking at is Alternative 7, the whole Maryann complete with a $100 monthly bill. I would be willing to pay more to be able to grow rhododendrons, azaleas or even citrus without having the leaves turn yellow. I think it is easy to underestimate the value of high quality water.

    I do agree this whole thing is more likely to be leveraged for increased growth. I absolutely agree there is much that should or could be done around conservation. That is why Don’s idea of tiered use makes the most sense. Quality issues aside, there are also negative consequences to pumping groundwater.

    There is the groundwater overdraft issue which I understand is more pronounced in Woodland than Davis but is of concern everywhere, more for future generations.

    Pumping water uphill is expensive and energy intensive (fossil fuel consumption) and would reasonably be assumed to have a greater adverse environmental impact. So, even if the out-of-pocket expense for groundwater options is less, that doesn’t make it necessarily a better option from an environmental standpoint.

    Perfecting rights to surface water is a good legacy to leave future generations. Growth control is still a political decision that we should face and fight forthrightly. Let’s not fall back on “no water” as a defense against sprawl.

    No matter what, I will still maintain my reverse osmosis unit under the sink because of some of the human activities I’ve witnessed on the Sacramento River upstream of the proposed diversion. I would dearly love to get rid of my water softener and not put all that sodium into the sewer system. However, I will NOT shower in the brine that passes for tap water at my home in East Davis or subject my kitchen and bathroom fixtures to 850 TDS water without a treatment fight. Until such time as I have access to 100 TDS tap water, you’ll have to pry the salt pellet bag out of my cold, dead fingers.

  10. Dave Hart

    So what we’re looking at is Alternative 7, the whole Maryann complete with a $100 monthly bill. I would be willing to pay more to be able to grow rhododendrons, azaleas or even citrus without having the leaves turn yellow. I think it is easy to underestimate the value of high quality water.

    I do agree this whole thing is more likely to be leveraged for increased growth. I absolutely agree there is much that should or could be done around conservation. That is why Don’s idea of tiered use makes the most sense. Quality issues aside, there are also negative consequences to pumping groundwater.

    There is the groundwater overdraft issue which I understand is more pronounced in Woodland than Davis but is of concern everywhere, more for future generations.

    Pumping water uphill is expensive and energy intensive (fossil fuel consumption) and would reasonably be assumed to have a greater adverse environmental impact. So, even if the out-of-pocket expense for groundwater options is less, that doesn’t make it necessarily a better option from an environmental standpoint.

    Perfecting rights to surface water is a good legacy to leave future generations. Growth control is still a political decision that we should face and fight forthrightly. Let’s not fall back on “no water” as a defense against sprawl.

    No matter what, I will still maintain my reverse osmosis unit under the sink because of some of the human activities I’ve witnessed on the Sacramento River upstream of the proposed diversion. I would dearly love to get rid of my water softener and not put all that sodium into the sewer system. However, I will NOT shower in the brine that passes for tap water at my home in East Davis or subject my kitchen and bathroom fixtures to 850 TDS water without a treatment fight. Until such time as I have access to 100 TDS tap water, you’ll have to pry the salt pellet bag out of my cold, dead fingers.

  11. Dave Hart

    So what we’re looking at is Alternative 7, the whole Maryann complete with a $100 monthly bill. I would be willing to pay more to be able to grow rhododendrons, azaleas or even citrus without having the leaves turn yellow. I think it is easy to underestimate the value of high quality water.

    I do agree this whole thing is more likely to be leveraged for increased growth. I absolutely agree there is much that should or could be done around conservation. That is why Don’s idea of tiered use makes the most sense. Quality issues aside, there are also negative consequences to pumping groundwater.

    There is the groundwater overdraft issue which I understand is more pronounced in Woodland than Davis but is of concern everywhere, more for future generations.

    Pumping water uphill is expensive and energy intensive (fossil fuel consumption) and would reasonably be assumed to have a greater adverse environmental impact. So, even if the out-of-pocket expense for groundwater options is less, that doesn’t make it necessarily a better option from an environmental standpoint.

    Perfecting rights to surface water is a good legacy to leave future generations. Growth control is still a political decision that we should face and fight forthrightly. Let’s not fall back on “no water” as a defense against sprawl.

    No matter what, I will still maintain my reverse osmosis unit under the sink because of some of the human activities I’ve witnessed on the Sacramento River upstream of the proposed diversion. I would dearly love to get rid of my water softener and not put all that sodium into the sewer system. However, I will NOT shower in the brine that passes for tap water at my home in East Davis or subject my kitchen and bathroom fixtures to 850 TDS water without a treatment fight. Until such time as I have access to 100 TDS tap water, you’ll have to pry the salt pellet bag out of my cold, dead fingers.

  12. Dave Hart

    So what we’re looking at is Alternative 7, the whole Maryann complete with a $100 monthly bill. I would be willing to pay more to be able to grow rhododendrons, azaleas or even citrus without having the leaves turn yellow. I think it is easy to underestimate the value of high quality water.

    I do agree this whole thing is more likely to be leveraged for increased growth. I absolutely agree there is much that should or could be done around conservation. That is why Don’s idea of tiered use makes the most sense. Quality issues aside, there are also negative consequences to pumping groundwater.

    There is the groundwater overdraft issue which I understand is more pronounced in Woodland than Davis but is of concern everywhere, more for future generations.

    Pumping water uphill is expensive and energy intensive (fossil fuel consumption) and would reasonably be assumed to have a greater adverse environmental impact. So, even if the out-of-pocket expense for groundwater options is less, that doesn’t make it necessarily a better option from an environmental standpoint.

    Perfecting rights to surface water is a good legacy to leave future generations. Growth control is still a political decision that we should face and fight forthrightly. Let’s not fall back on “no water” as a defense against sprawl.

    No matter what, I will still maintain my reverse osmosis unit under the sink because of some of the human activities I’ve witnessed on the Sacramento River upstream of the proposed diversion. I would dearly love to get rid of my water softener and not put all that sodium into the sewer system. However, I will NOT shower in the brine that passes for tap water at my home in East Davis or subject my kitchen and bathroom fixtures to 850 TDS water without a treatment fight. Until such time as I have access to 100 TDS tap water, you’ll have to pry the salt pellet bag out of my cold, dead fingers.

  13. davisite

    Dave… If Doug’s information is correct about the lack of availability of surface water during the summer months, your rhododendrons and azaleas will still be turning yellow.. Try adding a 50/50 mixture of FeSO4 and Sulfur liberally to these sensitive plants.. it helps a lot.

  14. davisite

    Dave… If Doug’s information is correct about the lack of availability of surface water during the summer months, your rhododendrons and azaleas will still be turning yellow.. Try adding a 50/50 mixture of FeSO4 and Sulfur liberally to these sensitive plants.. it helps a lot.

  15. davisite

    Dave… If Doug’s information is correct about the lack of availability of surface water during the summer months, your rhododendrons and azaleas will still be turning yellow.. Try adding a 50/50 mixture of FeSO4 and Sulfur liberally to these sensitive plants.. it helps a lot.

  16. davisite

    Dave… If Doug’s information is correct about the lack of availability of surface water during the summer months, your rhododendrons and azaleas will still be turning yellow.. Try adding a 50/50 mixture of FeSO4 and Sulfur liberally to these sensitive plants.. it helps a lot.

  17. Dave Hart

    My point wasn’t to say I’m willing to spend $100 per month ONLY to grow azaleas. It was to say that the value of higher quality water makes life better in many ways. What if I’m an organic gardener and don’t want to use a 50/50 mixture of FeSO4 and Sulfur?

    Instead of banging her head against the deep well casing, good questions that any of the council should ask might be about the supply of surface water during a below normal, dry or critically dry year. These are the three categories of water year designation as forecast by the Department of Water Resources. Their forecast will likely be the document that our proposed surface diversion quantity would be based on.

    I am a proponent of surface water supply, but I also want the project to be properly conceived and designed. I also would like to know why the push for Alternative 7 that doesn’t seem to acknowledge the existence of our wells that are already in place. Maybe it’s assumed that we could fall back on them in a really long or protracted drought? Maybe it’s in the study and I missed it.

  18. Dave Hart

    My point wasn’t to say I’m willing to spend $100 per month ONLY to grow azaleas. It was to say that the value of higher quality water makes life better in many ways. What if I’m an organic gardener and don’t want to use a 50/50 mixture of FeSO4 and Sulfur?

    Instead of banging her head against the deep well casing, good questions that any of the council should ask might be about the supply of surface water during a below normal, dry or critically dry year. These are the three categories of water year designation as forecast by the Department of Water Resources. Their forecast will likely be the document that our proposed surface diversion quantity would be based on.

    I am a proponent of surface water supply, but I also want the project to be properly conceived and designed. I also would like to know why the push for Alternative 7 that doesn’t seem to acknowledge the existence of our wells that are already in place. Maybe it’s assumed that we could fall back on them in a really long or protracted drought? Maybe it’s in the study and I missed it.

  19. Dave Hart

    My point wasn’t to say I’m willing to spend $100 per month ONLY to grow azaleas. It was to say that the value of higher quality water makes life better in many ways. What if I’m an organic gardener and don’t want to use a 50/50 mixture of FeSO4 and Sulfur?

    Instead of banging her head against the deep well casing, good questions that any of the council should ask might be about the supply of surface water during a below normal, dry or critically dry year. These are the three categories of water year designation as forecast by the Department of Water Resources. Their forecast will likely be the document that our proposed surface diversion quantity would be based on.

    I am a proponent of surface water supply, but I also want the project to be properly conceived and designed. I also would like to know why the push for Alternative 7 that doesn’t seem to acknowledge the existence of our wells that are already in place. Maybe it’s assumed that we could fall back on them in a really long or protracted drought? Maybe it’s in the study and I missed it.

  20. Dave Hart

    My point wasn’t to say I’m willing to spend $100 per month ONLY to grow azaleas. It was to say that the value of higher quality water makes life better in many ways. What if I’m an organic gardener and don’t want to use a 50/50 mixture of FeSO4 and Sulfur?

    Instead of banging her head against the deep well casing, good questions that any of the council should ask might be about the supply of surface water during a below normal, dry or critically dry year. These are the three categories of water year designation as forecast by the Department of Water Resources. Their forecast will likely be the document that our proposed surface diversion quantity would be based on.

    I am a proponent of surface water supply, but I also want the project to be properly conceived and designed. I also would like to know why the push for Alternative 7 that doesn’t seem to acknowledge the existence of our wells that are already in place. Maybe it’s assumed that we could fall back on them in a really long or protracted drought? Maybe it’s in the study and I missed it.

Leave a Reply

About Us

Davis Vanguard logo

The Vanguard provides the Davis Community with incisive in-depth coverage of local government on a wide variety of issues. Since 2006, The Vanguard has provided Davis and Yolo County with some of the best groundbreaking news coverage on local government and policy issues affecting our city, our schools, the county, and the Sacramento Region.

Twitter

Quick Links

Contact Us

The People's Vanguard of Davis
PO Box 4715
Davis, CA 95617

Phone: (916) 970-3131


Follow Us


Email Sign-Up

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for