Looking Yet Again At the Water Issue

Share:
I spent quite a deal of time over the past two weeks looking into the water issue, I still believe myself to be woefully uninformed on this issue and thus at a severe disadvantage when going up against experts on the subject.

Yet I read last night’s article in the Davis Enterprise with some alarm because tough questions are never really asked.

“The city plans to partner with UC Davis and Woodland to draw water from the Sacramento River and use it as the water supply much of the year.

This would rescue the underground aquifers from which the two cities and university draw water today, project designers say, since the aquifer may not produce enough water to meet all of that demand in the future.”

My conversations with people have suggested that the current mid-level aquifer supplies us with something on the order of 15,000 acre-feet per year which is enough to supply a town the size of Davis with enough water for a year.

Furthermore, according to those same experts this aquifer has never failed to replenish. Do the city planners have studies suggesting that it will not?

According to city water specialist Jacques DeBra: “The underground water supply beneath the cities and university may not be reliable enough to meet future demand”

Again one must ask based on what kind of growth projections?

Councilmember Don Saylor is quoted as saying, “This is not a political issue. … This is a core service issue.”

Of course this is a political issue. Politics is means by which scarce resources are allocated. Water is a scarce resource and this is a political question of determining how to best supply Davis residents with the best and most reliable supply without putting a huge burden on the average family who would have to spend a tremendous amount of money per year for this project.

It seems to me that this discussion needs to come within the framework of a very frank discussion of future growth and also a very sincere effort to figure out if we spend the construction costs if there will even end up a supply n the future given the realities that the precipitation pattern may quickly change and that Los Angeles may end up losing their chief supplier of water and have the political muscle to take a large share of Northern California water. We could end up spending a tremendous amount of time and money on this project and end up worse off than we currently are now.

If we are concerned about the future viability of the mid-level aquifer, perhaps we should explore the idea that Mayor Greenwald suggests and see if deep aquifers could prove a viable means of supplementing our current supplies.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

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

48 thoughts on “Looking Yet Again At the Water Issue”

  1. Davisite

    “The city plans to partner with UC Davis and Woodland to draw water from the Sacramento River and use it as the water supply much of the year.

    What I gleaned from the fractured answers that Mayor Greenwald received was that this plan offered Davis surface water during the winter months and that for the summer months (June-September),even in the best case scenerio, Davis would be “at the end of the line” and would probably not be able to draw water from the Sacramento river.

  2. Davisite

    “The city plans to partner with UC Davis and Woodland to draw water from the Sacramento River and use it as the water supply much of the year.

    What I gleaned from the fractured answers that Mayor Greenwald received was that this plan offered Davis surface water during the winter months and that for the summer months (June-September),even in the best case scenerio, Davis would be “at the end of the line” and would probably not be able to draw water from the Sacramento river.

  3. Davisite

    “The city plans to partner with UC Davis and Woodland to draw water from the Sacramento River and use it as the water supply much of the year.

    What I gleaned from the fractured answers that Mayor Greenwald received was that this plan offered Davis surface water during the winter months and that for the summer months (June-September),even in the best case scenerio, Davis would be “at the end of the line” and would probably not be able to draw water from the Sacramento river.

  4. Davisite

    “The city plans to partner with UC Davis and Woodland to draw water from the Sacramento River and use it as the water supply much of the year.

    What I gleaned from the fractured answers that Mayor Greenwald received was that this plan offered Davis surface water during the winter months and that for the summer months (June-September),even in the best case scenerio, Davis would be “at the end of the line” and would probably not be able to draw water from the Sacramento river.

  5. Davisite

    An interesting afterthought just occured to me… if we would still need our water softener systems for a good part of the year, what would happen to them( the exchange resin system) if it was disconnected for those 4 months? Would the drying out damage them? Would this necessitate running the system continuously as we do now?. In addition, the claim that the salt load on our waste water would be dramatically reduced by not having water softeners is challenged by the fact that we would still be relying on ground water for much of the year.

  6. Davisite

    An interesting afterthought just occured to me… if we would still need our water softener systems for a good part of the year, what would happen to them( the exchange resin system) if it was disconnected for those 4 months? Would the drying out damage them? Would this necessitate running the system continuously as we do now?. In addition, the claim that the salt load on our waste water would be dramatically reduced by not having water softeners is challenged by the fact that we would still be relying on ground water for much of the year.

  7. Davisite

    An interesting afterthought just occured to me… if we would still need our water softener systems for a good part of the year, what would happen to them( the exchange resin system) if it was disconnected for those 4 months? Would the drying out damage them? Would this necessitate running the system continuously as we do now?. In addition, the claim that the salt load on our waste water would be dramatically reduced by not having water softeners is challenged by the fact that we would still be relying on ground water for much of the year.

  8. Davisite

    An interesting afterthought just occured to me… if we would still need our water softener systems for a good part of the year, what would happen to them( the exchange resin system) if it was disconnected for those 4 months? Would the drying out damage them? Would this necessitate running the system continuously as we do now?. In addition, the claim that the salt load on our waste water would be dramatically reduced by not having water softeners is challenged by the fact that we would still be relying on ground water for much of the year.

  9. Davisite

    Correction: I got it reversed, the water softeners could potentially be disconnected for 8 months, allowing the exchange resin to dry out even more.

    Correction: perhaps not “relying on ground water for much of the year” but still about 1/3 of the year during our hottest weather when we irrigate our landscapes.

  10. Davisite

    Correction: I got it reversed, the water softeners could potentially be disconnected for 8 months, allowing the exchange resin to dry out even more.

    Correction: perhaps not “relying on ground water for much of the year” but still about 1/3 of the year during our hottest weather when we irrigate our landscapes.

  11. Davisite

    Correction: I got it reversed, the water softeners could potentially be disconnected for 8 months, allowing the exchange resin to dry out even more.

    Correction: perhaps not “relying on ground water for much of the year” but still about 1/3 of the year during our hottest weather when we irrigate our landscapes.

  12. Davisite

    Correction: I got it reversed, the water softeners could potentially be disconnected for 8 months, allowing the exchange resin to dry out even more.

    Correction: perhaps not “relying on ground water for much of the year” but still about 1/3 of the year during our hottest weather when we irrigate our landscapes.

  13. Doug Paul Davis

    The other question I come back to is how much water could we save if we got rid of luxury usage. For example, how much water do private swimming pools use? I’m not suggesting we get rid of them, only suggesting that we study usage and ways to reduce water usage.

  14. Doug Paul Davis

    The other question I come back to is how much water could we save if we got rid of luxury usage. For example, how much water do private swimming pools use? I’m not suggesting we get rid of them, only suggesting that we study usage and ways to reduce water usage.

  15. Doug Paul Davis

    The other question I come back to is how much water could we save if we got rid of luxury usage. For example, how much water do private swimming pools use? I’m not suggesting we get rid of them, only suggesting that we study usage and ways to reduce water usage.

  16. Doug Paul Davis

    The other question I come back to is how much water could we save if we got rid of luxury usage. For example, how much water do private swimming pools use? I’m not suggesting we get rid of them, only suggesting that we study usage and ways to reduce water usage.

  17. Davisite

    Our tiered water rate scheme now
    attempts to deal with those who use a lot of water which can be defined as luxury use.

    A significant driving force behind the water issue that we are dealing with is the passage of Senator Kuehl’s bill that calls for water supplies needed for a development to be clearly identified before the development can proceed. This law was also the driving force behind the Sacramento developers’ efforts to control the water rights of the Conway Ranch.

  18. Davisite

    Our tiered water rate scheme now
    attempts to deal with those who use a lot of water which can be defined as luxury use.

    A significant driving force behind the water issue that we are dealing with is the passage of Senator Kuehl’s bill that calls for water supplies needed for a development to be clearly identified before the development can proceed. This law was also the driving force behind the Sacramento developers’ efforts to control the water rights of the Conway Ranch.

  19. Davisite

    Our tiered water rate scheme now
    attempts to deal with those who use a lot of water which can be defined as luxury use.

    A significant driving force behind the water issue that we are dealing with is the passage of Senator Kuehl’s bill that calls for water supplies needed for a development to be clearly identified before the development can proceed. This law was also the driving force behind the Sacramento developers’ efforts to control the water rights of the Conway Ranch.

  20. Davisite

    Our tiered water rate scheme now
    attempts to deal with those who use a lot of water which can be defined as luxury use.

    A significant driving force behind the water issue that we are dealing with is the passage of Senator Kuehl’s bill that calls for water supplies needed for a development to be clearly identified before the development can proceed. This law was also the driving force behind the Sacramento developers’ efforts to control the water rights of the Conway Ranch.

  21. Anonymous

    I think “davisite” nailed it: Kuhl’s legislation. Translating into local language = Covell [Village, Sports Complex, gated community, now likely “Water World”]. Largest piece of undeveloped property left on the periphery, and one which would have likely accelerated the waste/water projects.

    As far as conservation goes, been there, suffered throught it during the drought years. Limited watering hours on alternating days, no car washing, no washing down driveways, etc. One of the reasons we have meters.

  22. Anonymous

    I think “davisite” nailed it: Kuhl’s legislation. Translating into local language = Covell [Village, Sports Complex, gated community, now likely “Water World”]. Largest piece of undeveloped property left on the periphery, and one which would have likely accelerated the waste/water projects.

    As far as conservation goes, been there, suffered throught it during the drought years. Limited watering hours on alternating days, no car washing, no washing down driveways, etc. One of the reasons we have meters.

  23. Anonymous

    I think “davisite” nailed it: Kuhl’s legislation. Translating into local language = Covell [Village, Sports Complex, gated community, now likely “Water World”]. Largest piece of undeveloped property left on the periphery, and one which would have likely accelerated the waste/water projects.

    As far as conservation goes, been there, suffered throught it during the drought years. Limited watering hours on alternating days, no car washing, no washing down driveways, etc. One of the reasons we have meters.

  24. Anonymous

    I think “davisite” nailed it: Kuhl’s legislation. Translating into local language = Covell [Village, Sports Complex, gated community, now likely “Water World”]. Largest piece of undeveloped property left on the periphery, and one which would have likely accelerated the waste/water projects.

    As far as conservation goes, been there, suffered throught it during the drought years. Limited watering hours on alternating days, no car washing, no washing down driveways, etc. One of the reasons we have meters.

  25. Rich Rifkin

    It depends on what crop is grown. Rice uses the most. Tomatoes use quite a lot. Some other common crops grown around here use less. But generally, when California farmland is urbanized — i.e., when we have “growth” — less water is consumed. Building a new suburban subdivision is, strangely enough, a way to save some water.

    Part of the reason is that farmers have little incentive to conserve. They pay much less per acre-foot than municipalities pay. And they tend to not invest in water-saving technologies.

    As a state, we should do what we can to alter the incentives of agribusiness, so that farmers have an incentive to keep farming, but to do so with less water.

  26. Rich Rifkin

    It depends on what crop is grown. Rice uses the most. Tomatoes use quite a lot. Some other common crops grown around here use less. But generally, when California farmland is urbanized — i.e., when we have “growth” — less water is consumed. Building a new suburban subdivision is, strangely enough, a way to save some water.

    Part of the reason is that farmers have little incentive to conserve. They pay much less per acre-foot than municipalities pay. And they tend to not invest in water-saving technologies.

    As a state, we should do what we can to alter the incentives of agribusiness, so that farmers have an incentive to keep farming, but to do so with less water.

  27. Rich Rifkin

    It depends on what crop is grown. Rice uses the most. Tomatoes use quite a lot. Some other common crops grown around here use less. But generally, when California farmland is urbanized — i.e., when we have “growth” — less water is consumed. Building a new suburban subdivision is, strangely enough, a way to save some water.

    Part of the reason is that farmers have little incentive to conserve. They pay much less per acre-foot than municipalities pay. And they tend to not invest in water-saving technologies.

    As a state, we should do what we can to alter the incentives of agribusiness, so that farmers have an incentive to keep farming, but to do so with less water.

  28. Rich Rifkin

    It depends on what crop is grown. Rice uses the most. Tomatoes use quite a lot. Some other common crops grown around here use less. But generally, when California farmland is urbanized — i.e., when we have “growth” — less water is consumed. Building a new suburban subdivision is, strangely enough, a way to save some water.

    Part of the reason is that farmers have little incentive to conserve. They pay much less per acre-foot than municipalities pay. And they tend to not invest in water-saving technologies.

    As a state, we should do what we can to alter the incentives of agribusiness, so that farmers have an incentive to keep farming, but to do so with less water.

  29. Davisite

    Yes.. the antiquated and very politicized water laws, mainly federal, need serious reform to make agriculture more water efficient.. This is far beyond the political powers of our little burg… The local political issue that we CAN influence is… do we want to allow the special interests to influence our water/wastewater decisions for their own benefit and not necessarily to our benefit?

  30. Davisite

    Yes.. the antiquated and very politicized water laws, mainly federal, need serious reform to make agriculture more water efficient.. This is far beyond the political powers of our little burg… The local political issue that we CAN influence is… do we want to allow the special interests to influence our water/wastewater decisions for their own benefit and not necessarily to our benefit?

  31. Davisite

    Yes.. the antiquated and very politicized water laws, mainly federal, need serious reform to make agriculture more water efficient.. This is far beyond the political powers of our little burg… The local political issue that we CAN influence is… do we want to allow the special interests to influence our water/wastewater decisions for their own benefit and not necessarily to our benefit?

  32. Davisite

    Yes.. the antiquated and very politicized water laws, mainly federal, need serious reform to make agriculture more water efficient.. This is far beyond the political powers of our little burg… The local political issue that we CAN influence is… do we want to allow the special interests to influence our water/wastewater decisions for their own benefit and not necessarily to our benefit?

  33. Dave Hart

    Sorry for the length, but y’all pushed my buttons on this issue again.

    1. Junk the resin exchange softener for an “on demand” type system. When you don’t use water, it doesn’t soften. Got one. It uses much less salt and you don’t have to turn it off when you go on vacation. I’d like to see the city do an analysis on the WW system if all users converted their softeners.

    2. On average in California, an acre of urban development uses about the same water as agriculture (depending on the specific crop) which is about 3 feet of water. Sustainable agriculture is definitely the way to go for many other reason, but it won’t really save any water. Plants, especially crop plants, need water to grow. The question is how much money, time and effort a grower, sustainable or otherwise, has to devote to increased irrigation efficiency and technology and remain in business. We urbanites should really do our homework before we start making accusations of irrigation inefficiency.

    3. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. How come the city of Davis likes to sprinkle city streets with our park irrigation systems? Why does the city approve landscape architect designs that include small, non-useable turf areas in the parks? Turf is appropriate for wide, flat areas used for recreational purposes. But turf is a high water user and could be reduced without any adverse impact to park users. How many broken sprinkler geysers can be counted in Davis parks? At least in agriculture, there is already a market or built in business incentive to not waste water through excess electricity bills, harm to the crops, etc.

    4. Luxury usage can always be paid for by those who have the dollars. A residential parcel with a swimming pool and xeriscape gardening may use less water than another home with a full garden full of ferns and water loving plants. The most truly ridiculous misuse of water is ornamental lakes. An open surface of water will evaporate, during the summer months, at least 0.3 inches of water per day and here in the valley a hot breezy day can evaporate over 0.5 inches. Multiply that number by the area of the open body of water and all the low-flow shower heads and low-flush toilets in the world won’t offset the losses. This is a point I made in a water workshop at the City Council Chamber with Lois Wolk and hired consultants two or three years before metering was adopted. I can’t even remember how long ago that was. Lois was initially aghast as we all should be, then said she thought I must be wrong. But the consultants agreed and even said my analysis was conservative. Lake Alhambra was still built as designed. Why let the facts inform public policy?

    5. We’d save a lot more water if we shifted our gardening ideal from that of the “English Garden” to native California xeriscaping and left the expanses of lawn to the parks system. That would be another interesting analysis: What would be Davis’ total water use if we had a “green-lawn-go-to-jail” law? Okay, so I’m being facetious. Imagine what fun Dunning would have with that one! But how else is the public supposed to see the boundaries of the problem unless we study each component of our water usage so that we know the price of each component and the value of each component? A thorough analysis would help us to decide if the price to value ratio is acceptable.

    6. Is aquifer subsidence occurring in Davis? If so, we are irresponsible to not shift, to some degree, to surface water.

    As it stands now, everyone wants to live as if they have an unlimited supply of water and they don’t want to pay for it. Leadership means bringing us all to an understanding of our situation, not simply adopting a position.

  34. Dave Hart

    Sorry for the length, but y’all pushed my buttons on this issue again.

    1. Junk the resin exchange softener for an “on demand” type system. When you don’t use water, it doesn’t soften. Got one. It uses much less salt and you don’t have to turn it off when you go on vacation. I’d like to see the city do an analysis on the WW system if all users converted their softeners.

    2. On average in California, an acre of urban development uses about the same water as agriculture (depending on the specific crop) which is about 3 feet of water. Sustainable agriculture is definitely the way to go for many other reason, but it won’t really save any water. Plants, especially crop plants, need water to grow. The question is how much money, time and effort a grower, sustainable or otherwise, has to devote to increased irrigation efficiency and technology and remain in business. We urbanites should really do our homework before we start making accusations of irrigation inefficiency.

    3. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. How come the city of Davis likes to sprinkle city streets with our park irrigation systems? Why does the city approve landscape architect designs that include small, non-useable turf areas in the parks? Turf is appropriate for wide, flat areas used for recreational purposes. But turf is a high water user and could be reduced without any adverse impact to park users. How many broken sprinkler geysers can be counted in Davis parks? At least in agriculture, there is already a market or built in business incentive to not waste water through excess electricity bills, harm to the crops, etc.

    4. Luxury usage can always be paid for by those who have the dollars. A residential parcel with a swimming pool and xeriscape gardening may use less water than another home with a full garden full of ferns and water loving plants. The most truly ridiculous misuse of water is ornamental lakes. An open surface of water will evaporate, during the summer months, at least 0.3 inches of water per day and here in the valley a hot breezy day can evaporate over 0.5 inches. Multiply that number by the area of the open body of water and all the low-flow shower heads and low-flush toilets in the world won’t offset the losses. This is a point I made in a water workshop at the City Council Chamber with Lois Wolk and hired consultants two or three years before metering was adopted. I can’t even remember how long ago that was. Lois was initially aghast as we all should be, then said she thought I must be wrong. But the consultants agreed and even said my analysis was conservative. Lake Alhambra was still built as designed. Why let the facts inform public policy?

    5. We’d save a lot more water if we shifted our gardening ideal from that of the “English Garden” to native California xeriscaping and left the expanses of lawn to the parks system. That would be another interesting analysis: What would be Davis’ total water use if we had a “green-lawn-go-to-jail” law? Okay, so I’m being facetious. Imagine what fun Dunning would have with that one! But how else is the public supposed to see the boundaries of the problem unless we study each component of our water usage so that we know the price of each component and the value of each component? A thorough analysis would help us to decide if the price to value ratio is acceptable.

    6. Is aquifer subsidence occurring in Davis? If so, we are irresponsible to not shift, to some degree, to surface water.

    As it stands now, everyone wants to live as if they have an unlimited supply of water and they don’t want to pay for it. Leadership means bringing us all to an understanding of our situation, not simply adopting a position.

  35. Dave Hart

    Sorry for the length, but y’all pushed my buttons on this issue again.

    1. Junk the resin exchange softener for an “on demand” type system. When you don’t use water, it doesn’t soften. Got one. It uses much less salt and you don’t have to turn it off when you go on vacation. I’d like to see the city do an analysis on the WW system if all users converted their softeners.

    2. On average in California, an acre of urban development uses about the same water as agriculture (depending on the specific crop) which is about 3 feet of water. Sustainable agriculture is definitely the way to go for many other reason, but it won’t really save any water. Plants, especially crop plants, need water to grow. The question is how much money, time and effort a grower, sustainable or otherwise, has to devote to increased irrigation efficiency and technology and remain in business. We urbanites should really do our homework before we start making accusations of irrigation inefficiency.

    3. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. How come the city of Davis likes to sprinkle city streets with our park irrigation systems? Why does the city approve landscape architect designs that include small, non-useable turf areas in the parks? Turf is appropriate for wide, flat areas used for recreational purposes. But turf is a high water user and could be reduced without any adverse impact to park users. How many broken sprinkler geysers can be counted in Davis parks? At least in agriculture, there is already a market or built in business incentive to not waste water through excess electricity bills, harm to the crops, etc.

    4. Luxury usage can always be paid for by those who have the dollars. A residential parcel with a swimming pool and xeriscape gardening may use less water than another home with a full garden full of ferns and water loving plants. The most truly ridiculous misuse of water is ornamental lakes. An open surface of water will evaporate, during the summer months, at least 0.3 inches of water per day and here in the valley a hot breezy day can evaporate over 0.5 inches. Multiply that number by the area of the open body of water and all the low-flow shower heads and low-flush toilets in the world won’t offset the losses. This is a point I made in a water workshop at the City Council Chamber with Lois Wolk and hired consultants two or three years before metering was adopted. I can’t even remember how long ago that was. Lois was initially aghast as we all should be, then said she thought I must be wrong. But the consultants agreed and even said my analysis was conservative. Lake Alhambra was still built as designed. Why let the facts inform public policy?

    5. We’d save a lot more water if we shifted our gardening ideal from that of the “English Garden” to native California xeriscaping and left the expanses of lawn to the parks system. That would be another interesting analysis: What would be Davis’ total water use if we had a “green-lawn-go-to-jail” law? Okay, so I’m being facetious. Imagine what fun Dunning would have with that one! But how else is the public supposed to see the boundaries of the problem unless we study each component of our water usage so that we know the price of each component and the value of each component? A thorough analysis would help us to decide if the price to value ratio is acceptable.

    6. Is aquifer subsidence occurring in Davis? If so, we are irresponsible to not shift, to some degree, to surface water.

    As it stands now, everyone wants to live as if they have an unlimited supply of water and they don’t want to pay for it. Leadership means bringing us all to an understanding of our situation, not simply adopting a position.

  36. Dave Hart

    Sorry for the length, but y’all pushed my buttons on this issue again.

    1. Junk the resin exchange softener for an “on demand” type system. When you don’t use water, it doesn’t soften. Got one. It uses much less salt and you don’t have to turn it off when you go on vacation. I’d like to see the city do an analysis on the WW system if all users converted their softeners.

    2. On average in California, an acre of urban development uses about the same water as agriculture (depending on the specific crop) which is about 3 feet of water. Sustainable agriculture is definitely the way to go for many other reason, but it won’t really save any water. Plants, especially crop plants, need water to grow. The question is how much money, time and effort a grower, sustainable or otherwise, has to devote to increased irrigation efficiency and technology and remain in business. We urbanites should really do our homework before we start making accusations of irrigation inefficiency.

    3. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. How come the city of Davis likes to sprinkle city streets with our park irrigation systems? Why does the city approve landscape architect designs that include small, non-useable turf areas in the parks? Turf is appropriate for wide, flat areas used for recreational purposes. But turf is a high water user and could be reduced without any adverse impact to park users. How many broken sprinkler geysers can be counted in Davis parks? At least in agriculture, there is already a market or built in business incentive to not waste water through excess electricity bills, harm to the crops, etc.

    4. Luxury usage can always be paid for by those who have the dollars. A residential parcel with a swimming pool and xeriscape gardening may use less water than another home with a full garden full of ferns and water loving plants. The most truly ridiculous misuse of water is ornamental lakes. An open surface of water will evaporate, during the summer months, at least 0.3 inches of water per day and here in the valley a hot breezy day can evaporate over 0.5 inches. Multiply that number by the area of the open body of water and all the low-flow shower heads and low-flush toilets in the world won’t offset the losses. This is a point I made in a water workshop at the City Council Chamber with Lois Wolk and hired consultants two or three years before metering was adopted. I can’t even remember how long ago that was. Lois was initially aghast as we all should be, then said she thought I must be wrong. But the consultants agreed and even said my analysis was conservative. Lake Alhambra was still built as designed. Why let the facts inform public policy?

    5. We’d save a lot more water if we shifted our gardening ideal from that of the “English Garden” to native California xeriscaping and left the expanses of lawn to the parks system. That would be another interesting analysis: What would be Davis’ total water use if we had a “green-lawn-go-to-jail” law? Okay, so I’m being facetious. Imagine what fun Dunning would have with that one! But how else is the public supposed to see the boundaries of the problem unless we study each component of our water usage so that we know the price of each component and the value of each component? A thorough analysis would help us to decide if the price to value ratio is acceptable.

    6. Is aquifer subsidence occurring in Davis? If so, we are irresponsible to not shift, to some degree, to surface water.

    As it stands now, everyone wants to live as if they have an unlimited supply of water and they don’t want to pay for it. Leadership means bringing us all to an understanding of our situation, not simply adopting a position.

  37. Davisite

    Great comments Dave.. All of the real options need to be thoroughly discussed and analyzed..not just one narrative and then “stonewall” the rest. This is what leadership is all about..

  38. Davisite

    Great comments Dave.. All of the real options need to be thoroughly discussed and analyzed..not just one narrative and then “stonewall” the rest. This is what leadership is all about..

  39. Davisite

    Great comments Dave.. All of the real options need to be thoroughly discussed and analyzed..not just one narrative and then “stonewall” the rest. This is what leadership is all about..

  40. Davisite

    Great comments Dave.. All of the real options need to be thoroughly discussed and analyzed..not just one narrative and then “stonewall” the rest. This is what leadership is all about..

  41. Tansey Thomas

    The senior Citizens Commission has “Update on potential Wastewater Rate Increases” listed on their Feb. 8 Agenda. An elderly neighbor of Mike Harrington advised me months ago that she and many other senior citizens were terrified that their water rates would be going up $200 and they couldn’t afford it. The woman owns and lives in the house she was born in. I am a renter and got myself into affordable housing so I would not have to worry about being driven out of town by increased costs in my old age as has happened to many other older residents. How soon will the rates go up?

    As a renter I am not concerned as much about the cost of water as I am about any costs that forces residents to move out of town especially families with children,
    the elderly and disabled.

  42. Tansey Thomas

    The senior Citizens Commission has “Update on potential Wastewater Rate Increases” listed on their Feb. 8 Agenda. An elderly neighbor of Mike Harrington advised me months ago that she and many other senior citizens were terrified that their water rates would be going up $200 and they couldn’t afford it. The woman owns and lives in the house she was born in. I am a renter and got myself into affordable housing so I would not have to worry about being driven out of town by increased costs in my old age as has happened to many other older residents. How soon will the rates go up?

    As a renter I am not concerned as much about the cost of water as I am about any costs that forces residents to move out of town especially families with children,
    the elderly and disabled.

  43. Tansey Thomas

    The senior Citizens Commission has “Update on potential Wastewater Rate Increases” listed on their Feb. 8 Agenda. An elderly neighbor of Mike Harrington advised me months ago that she and many other senior citizens were terrified that their water rates would be going up $200 and they couldn’t afford it. The woman owns and lives in the house she was born in. I am a renter and got myself into affordable housing so I would not have to worry about being driven out of town by increased costs in my old age as has happened to many other older residents. How soon will the rates go up?

    As a renter I am not concerned as much about the cost of water as I am about any costs that forces residents to move out of town especially families with children,
    the elderly and disabled.

  44. Tansey Thomas

    The senior Citizens Commission has “Update on potential Wastewater Rate Increases” listed on their Feb. 8 Agenda. An elderly neighbor of Mike Harrington advised me months ago that she and many other senior citizens were terrified that their water rates would be going up $200 and they couldn’t afford it. The woman owns and lives in the house she was born in. I am a renter and got myself into affordable housing so I would not have to worry about being driven out of town by increased costs in my old age as has happened to many other older residents. How soon will the rates go up?

    As a renter I am not concerned as much about the cost of water as I am about any costs that forces residents to move out of town especially families with children,
    the elderly and disabled.

Leave a Reply

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