The water issue, for all its divisions and acrimony, really boils down to two very separate but equally important questions: do we need the project and what is the best and most affordable way to deliver surface water to the ratepayers in a time of economic crisis?
I find myself in that middle camp – which believes we will need the surface water, but questions when we need it and also believes a lot of our attention should be focused on the best delivery of that water.
The question about the 14% rate hike and the city’s lack of forthright acknowledgement that that number is probably not realistic is a critical question, both in terms of the timing issue and in terms of the delivery issue. Those who dismiss it as a strawman argument, or side issue, miscalculate its importance.
It matters in terms of the cost, and it matters in terms of the cost-benefit analysis for the timing.
There is a cost-benefit analysis at play here. There are uncertainties about the cost of inaction, ranging from increased construction costs to potential fines. Those are weighed against the hardship imposed on ratepayers during a tough economic period, the impact on the local economy, and even the possibility of the schools and parks parcel taxes not being passed in the face of other fee hikes.
At the same time, one of our chief goals in this process is to get the best possible project, while minimizing the impact on ratepayers, the city’s general fund (through threatening the parks tax) and schools.
It is here where I think the city’s lack of clarity – at best – on the actual rates and their components hurts the most.
Our own work suggests something more than a bit odd. The city clearly knew about the conservation assumption and put it in the staff report.
Also buried in the middle of the September 2 Op-Ed by Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza was this line: “The city’s estimate above for an average single-family bill assumes 20 percent conservation over today’s typical use level. Thus, monthly impacts on each ratepayer will vary depending on their current water use and their level of conservation.”
But, as Bob Dunning points out, “Rather than argue about what was or wasn’t said at forums or whispered in the grocery store or written in unofficial spin-filled op-eds that may have been read by 5 percent of the population at best, much better to go to the official source for city of Davis facts and figures, the city’s own taxpayer-supported website.”
Going there he finds out, “Unfortunately for the mayor and his colleagues and all those city staffers parroting the party line, what I learned does not support the contention that the city has been straight with us about the 20 percent conservation element it claims is baked into the new rates.”
He quotes the page saying: “The Davis City Council approved maximum water rate increases of 14 percent each year, for five years, for the typical single-family residential customer.”
“Note that unmitigated word ‘maximum,’ ” he notes.
Bottom line, Mr. Dunning reports: “Nowhere under ‘Utility Rate Increases’ does the city even hint about 20 percent conservation being assumed in order to achieve that fictional 14 percent figure. It’s simply not mentioned.”
To add to the mounting evidence of confusion and uncertainty, even by those making the decisions, we have shown that at least one councilmember himself was confused about the rate hikes.
Councilmember Wolk told Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning: “The motion I voted for calls for maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year. Your math (which looks right to me) shows that is not necessarily the case for some.”
As Mr. Dunning pointed out, this would have been the perfect time for him to say “Oh, Bob, that presumed 20 percent conservation.”
Some have attempted to explain this off, putting the burden on them to have fully read the staff report. But the fact remains if a Councilmember did not know about the conservation assumption underlying the expressed rate hikes, how can we expect the public to have gotten the message, particularly when the Davis Enterprise reports failed to make any mention of it?
And yet, despite all of this evidence mounting against the fact that our leaders are either unaware of the nature of the rate hikes, incompetent in communicating that information to the public or flat-out being deceptive, some such as Romain Nelsen, a letter writer to the Davis Enterprise, wants us to “let our public servants decide.”
He writes, “I confess no insight into the probity of either, but having been duly alerted, Davis voters have begun intercession, salting the soil with our collective wisdom. And in that act, I wince.”
I understand having “suspicion of majoritian (sic) law-making on technical and tax issues.”
However, he continues: “I’d prefer such complexities be pondered and decided by elected public-servant politicians – rather than on a reactive, purse-string, parking-lot petition.”
His distrust of the people is noteworthy, but it strikes me perhaps he ought to be more distrustful of his elected representatives who appear to not be able to get their story straight here.
I can understand why the proponents of this water measure want to talk about anything else other than this 14% issue. And we will have that discussion on selenium soon enough.
The Vanguard has attempted to study and research every area carefully. We have concluded, at least on a number of issues, that the story coming from the city and city council is actually not the most-likely scenario, but rather the worst-case scenario.
There is something to be said for erring on the side of caution. The problem is that there are at least two sides of caution here and therefore, perhaps erring on the side of the caution means coming down more in the middle on this issue.
If the question is merely about how best to implement this project, the 14% snafu, which seems based rather heavily on unrealistic assumptions along with questions about the credentials of some of the key operators that will bid on this project, should give us pause in accepting the line coming down from city hall.
But I am just part of the ignorant masses trying to make sense out of one of the most complex policy areas we have invented – water.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Selenium needs to be addressed by 2015.
Salinity needs to be addressed by 2017.
Subsidence is occurring now at 1/2 to 1″ per year.
The use of the deep aquifer would have to increase many-fold to go to the ‘delay’ option.
Change the rates if you want, but don’t delay the project.
[quote]14% snafu which seems based rather heavily on unrealistic assumptions[/quote]
I’m not following why you contend the 14% “snafu”, whatever that means, is based “rather heavily on unrealistic assumptions”. What “rather heavily unrealistic assumptions” are you referring to? A 20% conservation rate? If that is the case, the bottom line is that the savings on the wastewater treatment side is predicated on water conservation. I believe water conservation is also very much a part of CA’s STATE water policy.
[quote]There is something to be said for erring on the side of caution.[/quote]
Don Shor summed it up nicely:
[quote]Selenium needs to be addressed by 2015.
Salinity needs to be addressed by 2017.
Subsidence is occurring now at 1/2 to 1″ per year.
The use of the deep aquifer would have to increase many-fold to go to the ‘delay’ option.
Change the rates if you want, but don’t delay the project. [/quote]
To Don’s list I would add:
-Construction/finance costs are likely to increase if we delay the project, endangering future school parcel/city parks taxes;
-The SWRCB has emphatically stated municipalities will not gain financially by not coming into compliance, and be fined accordingly.
-Fines are MANDATORY, NOT DISCRETIONARY.
-There is a real danger in today’s water rights climate, that we could lose those water rights if we sleep on them – the federal gov’t lost theirs to the state in the case of the Auburn Dam.
Steve Souza has been unusually quiet, what’s up. Actually they all have it seems.
They are waiting for the referendum count.
Problem for them is: Here comes Ernie with his initiative!
Like it or not, both Souza and Wolk will be running on the platform of demanding voters to approve their plan to vastly increase our taxes.
Make no bones about this: the water interests will throw a million or more against the referendum and initiative, while seeking to bloster their voting friends, Souza and Wolk.
It is going to get wild for sure.
Lets look at this from a slightly different perspective. Below is the beginning of a list of issues and the possible positions of the three groups David has described in his article. Please feel free to jump in and add more issues and/or suggest changes to my draft wording below.
[b]Selenium needs to be addressed by 2015[/b]
— “Now” perspective = changing water source is best and least expensive option
— “When” perspective = we need to know more about both the thresholds and the options
— “Never” perspective = the deep aquifer is the solution
[b]Salinity needs to be addressed by 2017[/b]
— “Now” perspective = changing water source is best and least expensive option
— “When” perspective = we need to pursue a salinity threshold variance
— “Never” perspective = the deep aquifer is the solution
[b]Subsidence is occurring now at 1/2 to 1″ per year.[/b]
— “Now” perspective = going with surface water reduces the draw on the aquifers and reduces subsidence
— “When” perspective = we need to study the subsidence issue more closely to understand its importance and its fiscal impact
— “Never” perspective = new deep aquifer wells will have less subsidence
[b]The use of the deep aquifer would have to increase many-fold to go to the ‘delay’ option. [/b]
— “Now” perspective = increasing deep aquifer wells is extremely problematic because of the EIR process and UC Davis’ senior right to the deep aquifer. There is major potential for litigation and litigation delays that make more deep aquifer wells as much an “if” proposition as a “when” proposition.
— “When” perspective = we need to study the deep aquifer issues more closely to understand its importance, its legal risks and its fiscal impact
— “Never” perspective = UC Davis will not be able to block the City’s further access to the deep aquifer. A compromise between the City and UCD on the issue of access to the deep aquifer is inevitable.
[b]Construction/finance costs are likely to increase if we delay the project[/b]
— “Now” perspective = there will never be a better time to be issuing RFPs. The bids will be lowered due to the construction industry’s need for business.
— “When” perspective = the current economic factors are expected to last for a number of years, so the construction industry is likely to be just as hungrey for as much as 5-10 years.
— “Never” perspective = this is a non issue if we don’t build it.
[b]The SWRCB has emphatically stated municipalities will not gain financially by not coming into compliance, and be fined accordingly.[/b]
— “Now” perspective = fines (substantial fines) are a major risk and fiscal factor that going forward with the project will eliminate
— “When” perspective = we need a better understanding of both the fines history and the possibilities of further variances.
— “Never” perspective = the SWRCB is not an elected body. We should actively fight any fines as aggressively as possible (from closing remarks by John Munn at Wednesday’s Woodland Water Forum)
[b]Fines are MANDATORY, NOT DISCRETIONARY. [/b]
— “Now” perspective = fines (substantial fines) are a major risk and fiscal factor that going forward with the project will eliminate
— “When” perspective = we need a better understanding of both the fines history and the possibilities of further variances.
— “Never” perspective = the SWRCB is not an elected body. We should actively fight any fines as aggressively as possible (from closing remarks by John Munn at Wednesday’s Woodland Water Forum)
[b]There is a real danger in today’s water rights climate, that we could lose those water rights if we sleep on them [/b]
— “Now” perspective = going forward with the project eliminates this risk
— “When” perspective = history says we won’t lose our water right. Projecting the effect of higher level of “water wars” is speculation that can’t be quantified
— “Never” perspective = this is a non issue if we don’t build it.
==============================================
[i][b]The above is a START. Please feel free to add more issues and/or suggest changes to the draft wording I have included above.[/b][/i]
“Like it or not, both Souza and Wolk will be running on the platform of demanding voters to approve their plan to vastly increase our taxes.” MH
So. Mission accomplished??
How about Souza running on a platform that Harrington is a dishonest, conflicted demagogue – and Wolk running on a platform of “I tried to hold the line at 10% for one year?”
Are you shilling for Ritter’s candidate or will your ego force you to “reconsider?”
Matt: Don’t forget this quote from James Kassel in Rifkin’s op-ed.[quote]“Per Section 844 of the board’s regulations, lack of finances will not generally be accepted as good cause for delay in developing a project.” James Kassel[/quote]My read of this is that “lack of finances” would include subjective arguments that (1) we can’t take on multiple infrastructure projects at one time and (2) the median income of our ratepayers is insufficient.
Voter2012, copy the particular item and paste it in a post of yours and add your suggested wording change.
Alternatively, if you feel it is a new item add it, with suggested positions of the three groups.
I want this to be a collaborative/consensus effort rather than an effort single threaded through me.
This is not as black and white as the above comments would indicate.
We have not exhausted our remedies concerning the timeline on the requirements. There is still room to attempt to phase in this infrastructure in a more affordable manner. We might be able to work to with the regulators to acquire a salinity variance to postpone the surface water project, or perhaps negotiate a deferral on our waste water treatment plant instead. One regional administrator told me that the technical ability exists for the board to grant us extensions on most of the effluent constituents of concern to as late as 2025, and selenium until 2020 (from data Don Shor and I discussed yesterday, our selenium situation doesn’t look particularly bad anyway — quite possibly surmountable with our already planned well replacement or a small number of additional replacements).
If we wanted to consider phasing in the projects to make them more affordable, the city would have to make a strong case that the current plan will quite possibly be fiscally infeasible and have adverse socio-economic impacts. There certainly aren’t very many towns that have to construct entirely new surface water projects entirely from scratch and build new wastewater treatment plants at the same time.
That case can be made. It would be prudent to make it, particularly since we don’t even know how much the projects will cost yet, or what new storm water treatment requirements will cost.
Sue, the comments above are DRAFT. “Draft” by definition is not carved in black and white. Please feel free to add your contributions to this proposed basis for the community discussion of the key issues/components of this conundrum we collectively face.
Sue:[i] from data Don Shor and I discussed yesterday, our selenium situation doesn’t look particularly bad anyway — quite possibly surmountable with our already planned well replacement or a small number of additional replacements). [/i]
I completely disagree with this assessment.
Carrying the discussion forward from the previous thread:
The “weighted average” for selenium in city wells in 2010 was 6.4.
Deep aquifer was 2.8.
Long-term standard is 4.4.
You aren’t getting selenium-free water from the deep aquifer.
I think you need to analyze this in more detail. Complying with the selenium requirement would require replacing [i]several[/i] of the intermediate wells with deep ones.
There is no way your plan avoids drilling a significant number of wells into the deep aquifer, leading to a 200% to 400% increase in use of that aquifer. And it puts UCD into a bind, requiring them to double their pumping from the deep aquifer in ten years. But you keep talking about a couple of wells, or a few wells.
And remember that a majority of our wells are at or past their life span.
Please do the math and show me how you are not advocating for a significant increase in use of the deep aquifer for a period of 20 – 25 years.
“…those who dismiss it as a strawman argument, or side issue, miscalculate its importance.
It matters in terms of the cost, and it matters in terms of the cost-benefit analysis for the timing.”
What is,IMO, of equal if not greater importance(impact on how Davis voters will vote on the referendum and/or initiative) is the fact that the aggressive proponents of this project NOW who sit on the Council as well as city staff that responds to the “direction” of the Council Majority, have lost credibility with the voters, in the manner in which they “sipped” this project past the voters with a Xmas vote, the way that the Council Majority and our past Director of Public Works tried to keep the project from coming into the voter’s “radar” until they thought that they would be successful in claiming that the “horse had already left the barn”, and the obvious attempts to “fudge” the increase in rates both by “creative accounting” in the first instance and
the omission of the conservation factor when public clarification of the 14% rate increase was called for. The credibility of the Council Majority on the Davis surface water issue is in tatters.
Davisite, I totally agree. I don’t think the public likes to feel like they’ve been fooled through this process. The city is going to have to do a lot of convincing from here on out.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice……….
[quote]“Mike Harrington: Like it or not, both Souza and Wolk will be running on the platform of demanding voters to approve their plan to vastly increase our taxes.”[/quote]
It is my understanding that all candidates thus far support going forward with the water project. I hope all candidates don’t waver on this so the election doesn’t turn into a water vs. no water project election.
Like I said before, Mike Harrington has latched on to this as an “election defining issue”. Never mind that there are other huge problems to be dealt with in the coming years. The mudslinging, false rumors, slander, hate speech…it’s a real turn off, Mike. As a community, we have moved past this type of politicking. A good debate, but informative, polite and respectful, is what we want. You seem incapable of doing this.
I wonder if the advocates of the deep aquifer solution realize how much Davis residents would have to conserve if the amount the city could pump was restricted below the dozen or so wells that would have to be replaced over the next two decades.
Sue: [i]If we wanted to consider phasing in the projects to make them more affordable, the city would have to make a strong case that the current plan will quite possibly be fiscally infeasible and have adverse socio-economic impacts.[/i]
How could it be fiscally infeasible if Woodland is doing it?
I am unaware of any variance discussion that includes “socio-economic impacts.” The court case you are relying so heavily on simply involved that city’s inability to comply where the only option was reverse osmosis.
David: “There is a cost-benefit analysis at play here. There are uncertainties about the cost of inaction, ranging from increased construction costs to potential fines. Those are weighed against the hardship imposed on ratepayers during a tough economic period, the impact on the local economy, and even the possibility of the schools and parks parcel taxes not being passed in the face of other fee hikes.”
The environmental factors, which are driving this entire issue, are not part of your analysis? We wouldn’t even be having this whole discussion if it weren’t for the fact that Davis water pollutes the Delta.
Just for the record: the deep well option carries a much higher energy cost. It will make it hard to stake a strong environmental position on issues of carbon-neutrality in the future, when you are taking a cost-based opposition to this solution to environmental pollution.
Ryan: moved beyond what? The fact that the city lied to us about over $200,000,000 in false rate structure? You take your side; I’ll take the voters’ side. We will see what the voters are going to do with this one.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”What is, IMO, of equal if not greater importance (impact on how Davis voters will vote on the referendum and/or initiative) is [b]the fact that the aggressive proponents of this project NOW who sit on the Council as well as city staff that responds to the “direction” of the Council Majority, have lost credibility with the voters,[/b] in the manner in which they “sipped” this project past the voters with a Xmas vote, the way that the Council Majority and our past Director of Public Works tried to keep the project from coming into the voter’s “radar” until they thought that they would be successful in claiming that the “horse had already left the barn”, and the obvious attempts to “fudge” the increase in rates both by “creative accounting” in the first instance and the omission of the conservation factor when public clarification of the 14% rate increase was called for. The credibility of the Council Majority on the Davis surface water issue is in tatters.”[/i]
I agree with you d2 that this is a major issue. The challenge we all have is how to deal with it. My sense is that the COMMUNITY needs to aggressively reach out to itself and gather the issues together and perform independent due diligence on the various ways to address those issues. Between now and the referendum date (whenever it is set) we should conduct at least a dozen community forums soliciting resident/voter input and sharing the results of our due diligence. Those forums should be open and balanced. Serious effort should be made to include participants from all three scools of thought (as outlined by David above). Democracy works best when there is an engaged, informed electorate. Our goal should be the highest voter turnout in the history of Davis elections.
How will Harrington and Head’s referendum and initiative hold up to images of selenium poisoned birds similar to those posted here: [url]http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/Selenium/irrigation.htm[/url]
Let’s make this a taxes versus dead birds debate, shall we? Baby birds with deformed wings, beaks and legs, no eyes, etc….. All to save ya’ll a buck now.
Matt: In your list above I think you give the “never” crowd way to much credit. It suggests that the “never” crowd actually has an alternative.
To all the apologists and enablers and dabblers and bloggers who tried to block the refernedum and ram this project through no matter how many falsehoods and misstatements were being made by our city leaders as set up by the water consultants: the rate proposals are going down. Via the referendum, Ernie’s initiative, or both. Get used to that idea. You guys can blog and blog and blog with micro-detail after micro-detail in mind-numbing atomic level. The fact is: the voters are going to kick the a__ of the city and knock down these rates. You guys were not knocking, tabling, standing at markets. You have no idea what the mood and concerns of the voters are at this time. I can assure you that Bob Dunning’s concerns are shared by every single person who protested the Prop 218 notice, and every single person who signed our referendum petitions. The only uncertainty I have going forward is: whether Dan Wolk can politically survive what the voters are going to do in June 2012. I dont know that his fellow candidates will tie Dan’s Sept 6 motion and vote to his re-election, but I am betting a lot of others will do it. There is going to be punishment meted out next June, and get used to that idea.
That said, I like Dan, I just wish he had had the courage Sue demonstrated, and voted NO to a messed up project. (Dan, can you fix this mess soon?) That’s the question.
Dan: fix the budget, and fix the water project, and you will sail into office again. You still have time.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Davisite, I totally agree. I don’t think the public likes to feel like they’ve been fooled through this process. The city is going to have to do a lot of convincing from here on out.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice……….”[/i]
rusty, one of the challenges I think we all face is that the referendum itself has the potential to be another “fooler.” I could be wrong, but the question that the referendum appears to be going to pose is specifically about the rate amounts and rate structure of the Ordinance. As Sue has been pointing out loud and long, the real issues associated with Davis’ water/wastewater situation are much broader and deeper (no pun intended) than the rates as promulgated in the Ordinance. What we really need to be discussing (and possibly voting on in a referendum) are the goals and objectives of a solution to our water/wastewater challenges. A rate structure is only a byproduct of the solution.
Until we are in agreement on the issues and possible solutions, discussion of rates should be on the back burner. Once we come to consensus on the issues and a chosen solution, we will know the costs of that solution and therefore its revenue requirements, its fixed versus variable costs ratio and can then devise a rate structure that generates fixed and variable revenues in a way that matched the fixed and variable costs.
Matt: you misunderstand. The rates are first, and the voters will make sure of that in June. Then we get an indendent groundwater study. Then we see what is needed. And then we see the costs. And then we see how to pay. Matt, your analysis is good-hearted, but backward in order.
ELAINE: [i]”Construction/finance costs are [b]likely to increase[/b] if we delay the project, endangering future school parcel/city parks taxes.”[/i]
Are you conflating real dollar increases* with nominal increases? Or do you know of some reason why the price inflation of constructing a surface water project will increase faster than the CPI?
Some reasons why it might be more expensive: 1) because labor terms are more favorable to workers in the future than they are today; 2) because raw materials (principally steel and concrete) will become less available relative to demand in future years; 3) because energy costs will rise in real dollars; and 4) because new regulations will make the project more elaborate and hence more expensive.
I don’t buy #1. It has never been worse for hiring labor than it is now, given the prevailing wage laws and the PLA laws.
#2 is partially dependent on the state of the national economy. It is true that we are in a low-growth period now and that has depressed prices for steel and concrete. However, the bigger factor is that over the long run, the real prices of these materials is in a real dollar decline. That is true for most raw materials, because technological advances continue to make their production cheaper. So #2 is highly doubtful as a reason for higher costs.
#3 depends on whether you are a lefty or a righty. The left is convinced that fuel prices will endlessly go up. The right points to the continual discovery of new energy sources (like all the oil finds of recent years and the massive increase in natural gas production). Either way, I don’t see fuel costs as being all that big of a factor in the total cost of the surface water project.
#4 seems fairly reasonable. Save the period in the late 1970s (under Carter) and the early 1980s (under Reagan) we mostly tend to add to our regulatory burden. But that said, if the regulations are such that they require us to make the project better, then it is really apples and oranges. What might cost us more will not be the same project–it will be a better one.
All told, I don’t see any reason why, in real dollars, this thing should cost more in 2029 than it would have in 2009.
*A real dollar increase (for those unfamiliar with the term) is over and above inflation. For example, if general price inflation runs at 3.5% per year and you are looking at a product which today costs $100 but next year costs $103.50, in real dollars that product costs the same. However, in nominal dollars it costs $3.50 more.
Since we live in the real world, it only makes sense to consider real dollars, not nominal dollars.
In 2009, it was estimated that the surface water project would cost $325 million.** Let’s say we build it in 2029 and let’s say it costs $646.7 million. If CPI inflation runs at 3.5 percent per year for the 20 year period, then the real cost in 2029 will be just the same as it would have been in 2009.
If CPI inflation for the 20 years runs at 5% per year, then paying $646.7 million in 2029 will be 25% cheaper in real dollars than paying $325 million in 2009.
If CPI inflation for the 20 years runs at 2% per year, then paying $646.7 million in 2029 will be 33.9% more expensive in real dollars than paying $325 million in 2009.
—————-
**Note that $325 million in 2009 dollars is equal to $343.71 million in 2011 dollars:
$20 million for the Sacramento River intake
$33 million for the raw water pipelines
$156 million for the water treatment facility
$30 million for the Davis/UC Davis treated water transmission pipeline
$75 million for local facilities
No Mike. The studies are important input for an “educated voter” to be able to walk into the voting booth and cast an informed vote.
Money is the byproduct of the problem/solution, not the other way around.
I know you want an election where the voting populace is in the dark and voter turnout is low. That creates an election you can control because it will be driven by passion. However, these community educational forums are going to happen whether you like it or not. The voters will walk into the election booth armed with a good, balanced and independent sense of the issues we collectively face.
Matt: :I know you want an election where the voting populace is in the dark and voter turnout is low.”
Matt: not true. How can you say these things? Don’t condescend to the voters, or read ill-will into my motives.
If the voters want to vote down the rates, fine. The council can pass new rates. Or the council can revisit the issue and reduce the rates before the election. Whatever they want to do, however they want the ratepayers to pay for the surface water project, fine. It will be built in the long run or the short run. It will cost money in the long run or the short run. The question is when the ratepayers will pay for it, and what will be done in the interim about the issues that we are addressing here.
I hope you aren’t under the impression that your referendum on the rates will stop the surface water project.
Mike, I’m not doing either.
I’m not reading ill-will into your motives, only political expediency. Defining the issue narrowly around the rates gives you much more leverage to accomplish your real goal, which IMHO is to thwart peripheral development around Davis.
I’m not condescending to the voters. I’m [u]celebrating[/u] their intelligence and perception. Focusing solely on the rates as you are trying to do, does not engage the depth and robustness of the Davis voters’ ability to engage the water/wastewater issues and options.
Rates are a byproduct of how we engage the water/wastewater issues and solutions. Why do you want to focus the voters on a byproduct rather than the “real thing”?
I find this discussion fascinating! It’s educational, since with all important issues (and this qualifies as one) there are good, even convincing, arguments on both sides. I’m certainly learning more about local water issues than I ever wanted to. It’s also enjoyable, as the name-calling and mud-slinging add color and texture to all the dry facts! More than anything, it underscores what I love about Davis. Our community always brings both passion and wisdom to the table about nearly everything that transpires here. Thanks all!
@ Sue:
9 of the wells are over 30 years old.
12 of the wells are high selenium.
Another 4 of the wells are over 20 years old, so their lifespan would expire during the 20 – 25 year time period you want to delay the surface water project.
So somewhere between 9 and 12 of the wells will need to be replaced soon, and another 3 – 4 within a decade. I assume they would all be going to the deeper aquifer. I haven’t cross-checked the output of those wells with respect to the total, but that is a significant percentage of the total Davis water use at 15,000 acre-feet (2010). It’s more than half the wells, so just guessing that it’s more than half the water use: almost 8000 acre-feet to be drawing from the deep aquifer.
Plus, as noted before, UCD would have to go there for West Village after ten years as well: another 3000 acre-feet.
I am concerned that you and others are seriously underestimating the impact of your proposal on the deep aquifer. I think it is reasonable, based on recent history, to assume that UCD shares my concern.
Recap:
Salinity.
Selenium.
Subsidence.
Well replacement costs.
Deep aquifer issues.
and of course: pollution of the Delta.
Thanks for your engagement Crilly. Are there any big questions you want to add to the ones we have listed so far?
[b]Selenium needs to be addressed by 2015[/b]
— “Now” perspective = changing water source is best and least expensive option
— “When” perspective = we need to know more about both the thresholds and the options
— “Never” perspective = the deep aquifer is the solution
[b]Salinity needs to be addressed by 2017[/b]
— “Now” perspective = changing water source is best and least expensive option
— “When” perspective = we need to pursue a salinity threshold variance
— “Never” perspective = the deep aquifer is the solution
[b]Subsidence is occurring now at 1/2 to 1″ per year.[/b]
— “Now” perspective = going with surface water reduces the draw on the aquifers and reduces subsidence
— “When” perspective = we need to study the subsidence issue more closely to understand its importance and its fiscal impact
— “Never” perspective = new deep aquifer wells will have less subsidence
[b]The use of the deep aquifer would have to increase many-fold to go to the ‘delay’ option.[/b]
— “Now” perspective = increasing deep aquifer wells is extremely problematic because of the EIR process and UC Davis’ senior right to the deep aquifer. There is major potential for litigation and litigation delays that make more deep aquifer wells as much an “if” proposition as a “when” proposition.
— “When” perspective = we need to study the deep aquifer issues more closely to understand its importance, its legal risks and its fiscal impact
— “Never” perspective = UC Davis will not be able to block the City’s further access to the deep aquifer. A compromise between the City and UCD on the issue of access to the deep aquifer is inevitable.
[b]Construction/finance costs are likely to increase if we delay the project[/b]
— “Now” perspective = there will never be a better time to be issuing RFPs. The bids will be lowered due to the construction industry’s need for business.
— “When” perspective = the current economic factors are expected to last for a number of years, so the construction industry is likely to be just as hungrey for as much as 5-10 years.
— “Never” perspective = this is a non issue if we don’t build it.
[b]The SWRCB has emphatically stated municipalities will not gain financially by not coming into compliance, and be fined accordingly.[/b]
— “Now” perspective = fines (substantial fines) are a major risk and fiscal factor that going forward with the project will eliminate
— “When” perspective = we need a better understanding of both the fines history and the possibilities of further variances.
— “Never” perspective = the SWRCB is not an elected body. We should actively fight any fines as aggressively as possible (from closing remarks by John Munn at Wednesday’s Woodland Water Forum)
[b]Fines are MANDATORY, NOT DISCRETIONARY[/b]
— “Now” perspective = fines (substantial fines) are a major risk and fiscal factor that going forward with the project will eliminate
— “When” perspective = we need a better understanding of both the fines history and the possibilities of further variances.
— “Never” perspective = the SWRCB is not an elected body. We should actively fight any fines as aggressively as possible (from closing remarks by John Munn at Wednesday’s Woodland Water Forum)
[b]There is a real danger in today’s water rights climate, that we could lose those water rights if we sleep on them[/b]
— “Now” perspective = going forward with the project eliminates this risk
— “When” perspective = history says we won’t lose our water right. Projecting the effect of higher level of “water wars” is speculation that can’t be quantified
— “Never” perspective = this is a non issue if we don’t build it.
==============================================
[b]The above is a START. Everyone, please feel free to add more issues and/or suggest changes to the draft wording I have included above. [/b]
[quote]I completely disagree with this assessment.
Carrying the discussion forward from the previous thread:
The “weighted average” for selenium in city wells in 2010 was 6.4.
Deep aquifer was 2.8.
Long-term standard is 4.4.
You aren’t getting selenium-free water from the deep aquifer.
I think you need to analyze this in more detail. Complying with the selenium requirement would require replacing several of the intermediate wells with deep ones. –[b] Don Shor[/b][/quote] Don, I have some new information.
we are currently in compliance on our selenium after the overland flow treatment. If we could get approval to postpone the wastewater treatment plant, selenium should be fine.
If we negotiate to postpone the surface water project, the effluent will be closer to the 5.2 Ug/L of the current flow as it enters the plant(not the same number as the wellhead number). We have to bring it down to 4.4Ug/L.
If you look at our well profiles, you can see that one of the wells labelled “deep” is shallower than the others. Of our deepest wells, the selenium is less than 2 Ug/L.
Looking at the weighted average, it appears that we are also pumping more from the deep wells than from the shallow wells. When we dig the two new already planned deep wells, we will be taking the worst wells off-line.
I really do not believe we will have to dig very many more deep wells than already planned, if any, to meet the selenium requirements if we were to obtain permission to postpone the project.
Mike Harrington: “Ryan: moved beyond what? The fact that the city lied to us about over $200,000,000 in false rate structure? You take your side; I’ll take the voters’ side. We will see what the voters are going to do with this one.”
Read the post, Mike. We’ve moved beyond mudslinging, false rumors, slander, hate speech – all of which you engage in. You just don’t get it. The ends does not justify your poor behavior. Frankly, you are a little creepy.
Sue, the eleven wells that are high in selenium (one is off line) represent 57% of our water supply.
[quote]If we negotiate to postpone the surface water project, the effluent will be closer to the 5.2 Ug/L of the current flow as it enters the plant(not the same number as the wellhead number). We have to bring it down to 4.4Ug/L. [/quote]What I mean to say here is that if we were to succeed in negotiating to postpone the surface water project AND built the new wastewater treatment plant, then the effluent will be closer to the 5.2 Ug/L of the current flow as it enters the plant. That is because the current system removes much of the 5.2 Ug/L, whereas the new plant will not. But it still won’t take much if any more dilution than achievable through are already planned new deep water wells.
[i]Sue: We might be able to work to with the regulators to acquire a salinity variance to postpone the surface water project, or perhaps negotiate a deferral on our waste water treatment plant instead. [/i]
Hasn’t the City already received a 10 year delay in complying with the clean water act? Has any jurisdiction ever received two?
Sue: [i]we are currently in compliance on our selenium after the overland flow treatment. If we could get approval to [b]postpone the wastewater treatment plant[/b], selenium should be fine. [/i]
Huh? Are you now proposing that we seek approval to postpone the wastewater treatment plant?
[i] if we were to succeed in negotiating to [b]postpone the surface water project[/b] AND built the new wastewater treatment plant, then the effluent will be closer to the 5.2 Ug/L of the current flow as it enters the plant. [/i]
In other words: with selenium, your proposal to postpone the surface water project makes no positive difference.
Just for the record, I think that postponing the wastewater treatment plant and proceeding with the surface water project makes a lot of sense from various standpoints.
Ryan Kelly: “Read the post, Mike. We’ve moved beyond mudslinging, false rumors, slander, hate speech – all of which you engage in. You just don’t get it. The ends does not justify your poor behavior. Frankly, you are a little creepy.”
Apparently we haven’t Ryan. Its odd I checked out a while ago, not because I was bothered by the tone of the remarks, but, because my posts kept getting censored. Yet checking in it seems that the censor seems to be okay with statements harsher (and on other occasions racist) than anything I ever posted. His inconsistency is infuriating.
Truth being stranger than fiction, one time when I complained about racism he took down my post and left up the racist remarks. Encouraging me to engage in a debate about obviously bigoted remarks. I will not engage in such a debate nor will I contribute to the public dialogue as long as arbitrary censorship continues unabated on this blog.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b]
I have always said that postponing the new wastewater treatment plant would be the optimal solution. The only reason that I haven’t focused on it is that I was given the impression that it would be within the realm of possibility to obtain permission to postpone the surface water project but not the wastewater project.
But talking with the RWQCB recently, I got the impression that there just might be a possibility of postponing the wastewater treatment plant. I don’t know if the person that I talked with was familiar with the ten year delay issue. She seemed to be very familiar with the Davis case, but I will call again.
I think the thing to do is to make the case about fiscal infeasibility, as allowable under Porter-Cologne, to try to obtain a salinity variance, to try to obtain a maximally flexible NDPES permit, and then try to negotiate with the board for the most environmentally acceptable alternative which is financially feasible, without incurring serious negative socio-economic consequences (again, as allowed by Porter-Cologne).
Hopefully, we could end up with a postponement of the wastewater treatment plant instead of the surface water project. We could then role back our wastewater bills and transfer any fund balances to the water project.
Sue, thank you for your outreach. Lets keep that momentum going.
Michael Harrington said,
[quote]“Matt: not true. How can you say these things? Don’t condescend to the voters, or read ill-will into my motives.”[/quote]
What ARE Mr. Harrington’s motives? I am not an expert in Davis politics. I do recall Mr. Harrington being involved in the Covell Village episode, and just before the election reading what I considered to be an unfair hit piece on him regarding the property on Covell Blvd., next to Ikeda’s. Now, some years later after an extensive hiatus, he appears actively opposing the surface water project. At the same time, those collecting signatures, at least at Nugget Market, acknowledge they are being paid. My question is, who is Mr. Harrington representing?
Mind you, I have no problem with attorneys representing clients—it is in the finest American tradition. I don’t even mind them remaining silent as to who they are working for. But, in my limited experience, when lawyers expend a lot of hours representing a cause, and when someone pays people to collect signatures, something other than general community concern is going on.
Which is fine. People have the right to lobby for their interests. But what does bother me a bit is the feeling that silent individuals are pressing a water policy that is in their interest, but may not be in the interest of the city. Mr. Harrington reminds me of Noah Cross, played by John Huston, in “Chinatown.” In this movie, the word “Chinatown” represents actions that are incomprehensible to the general population.
In today’s blog, the editor I think accurately points out that those opposing this project have different motivations. Some believe it is too expensive and should be phased in over an extended period of time. Some believe it is not necessary and that the city’s wells are adequate for the foreseeable future. I don’t agree, but I respect those views. It is the third motive that I don’t understand. People don’t hire lawyers and signature gatherers out of general community concern. It’s Chinatown. But then, maybe I’m just paranoid.
@ Sue: that is [i]great[/i] news. I hope it moves forward in the direction you’re describing. I can’t think of a problem related to our previous discussions that doesn’t solve.
[b]@Don Shor[/b]:
I’m still gathering information on possible regulatory options and on our own situation. I’m trying to nail down the accurate numbers.
Surprisingly, the staff members to whom I was referred for answers didn’t have these actual numbers themselves yet, and are currently working to compile them.
Despite the certainty and strong claims that we have heard and read, staff is still working out some of these numbers and their implications.
What are you looking for? I have found that some regulatory numbers are posted on agency web sites. EPA posts their decisions that lead to regulations, for example, but you kind of have to backtrack from the state agency rulings in similar cases. They might not be thrilled if you brought them their own numbers, but it might expedite the process. Send me an email if you want me to spend some time doing searches.
If we postpone the water treatment plant, and proceed with the surface water option, why would we need to apply for a salinity variance? The surface water takes care of that. The interim limitations in our present discharge permit are for six specific things, of which salinity (EC) and selenium are the two main issues. But I believe the surface water project eliminates the problem with all six (aluminum, ammonia, cyanide, electrical conductivity, iron, and selenium), and it expires in 2012.
Why doesn’t the city just inform the SWRCB that, the surface water project having been approved, the renewal of the permit would not require those interim limits after the water project comes on line (2014 or so).
Put another way, why doesn’t the council just direct staff to apply for the renewal of the NPDES permit with interim limitations to exceed current releases pending completion of the new water source.
If there is some other effluent that the treatment plant takes care of, that isn’t mitigated by the surface water, I can’t figure out what it is.
[b]@Don Shor[/b]Because we don’t know what will work. The decision is up to the board.
As I said at the council meeting, at this stage we should be pursuing maximum flexibility because we are in dangerous fiscal territory and we don’t even know what our ultimate costs will be. As I said at the meeting: Pursue maximum flexibility, make our case about the fiscal infeasibility and try to negotiate from there.
[quote]obvious attempts to “fudge” the increase in rates both by “creative accounting” in the first instance[/quote]
So you are saying the citizen advisory committee “fudged” the increase in rates by “creative accounting”? I was on that citizen advisory committee, by the way…
[quote]ELAINE: “Construction/finance costs are likely to increase if we delay the project, endangering future school parcel/city parks taxes.”
Are you conflating real dollar increases* with nominal increases? Or do you know of some reason why the price inflation of constructing a surface water project will increase faster than the CPI? [/quote]
At the Wednesday forum in Woodland, the panel was emphatic that costs for construction/finance for the surface water project are the lowest they will ever be, and strongly urged rate payers to take advantage of this anomaly while it was still possible. If you doubt it, I suggest you talk to the Dept of Public Works or others involved in this project, to get their perspective on this issue. Common sense tells me construction/finance costs are going to do nothing but go up (even taking into account the rate of inflaction) in the future…
@ Sue: I think that applying for a variance that we don’t intend to use would just muddy the waters. The only purpose for applying for the salinity variance would be to delay the surface water project. That has numerous issues that we have discussed.
The city council needs to take a clear position. Order a delay in the wastewater treatment plant; seek a variance as needed for that. Pursue the surface water project. That option has fewest undesirable side effects. And the financial aspects would be clear to the Board if funds are being encumbered for the surface project. If you’re seeking two variances simultaneously, it would look like a delay tactic rather than a good faith effort to comply with effluent standards across the board.
[quote]we are currently in compliance on our selenium after the overland flow treatment. If we could get approval to postpone the wastewater treatment plant, selenium should be fine. [/quote]
This is a complete turnaround of your position, which has been to delay the SURFACE WATER PROJECT and move forward with the wastewater treatment plant. The problem with delaying the surface water project is that the savings on the wastewater treatment side are predicated on surface water. You are saying now that unnamed sources are indicating perhaps we can get variances on the wastewater treatment side. It was my understanding from things you have said previously, and things city staff have said, that we have no options but to go ahead with tertiary treatment. If you have discovered something different now, again, these “experts” need to come forward and speak up. There is no question in my mind delaying the wastewater treatment plant would be the better option, IF there was any chance we could get a variance for as long as it would take us to build the surface water project… but I would want more than rank speculation or vague maybes… so I would encourage you to keep working on this angle as far more viable than getting variances for the surface water project…
No Elaine, this is not a turn-around in my position. Please go back and read my post carefully. This is what I have been saying all along.
And please try to moderate the nasty and demeaning tone. Most of the information that I have been conveying is being confirmed by Rich Rifkin, who has disclosed his sources.
Elaine, in fairness to Sue, based on my personal experience, she has engaged/supported the [u]idea[/u] of delaying the Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade ever since I originally presented that idea to her. Her stated problem with the idea was the same one that Staff had/has, specifically that the SWRCB has already given Davis a 16-year deferral, and as a result Davis is “the very last city of its size or higher that doesn’t have Tertiary Treatment (the principal reason for the base upgrade). She and Staff both believed that the SWRCB would dismiss out-of-hand any further deferral request. It is important to note that my recent conversations with numerous members of Staff indicate that they still think that is true.
I applaud Sue’s willingness to rethink through this idea. I believe that if Davis presents to the SWRCB a “holistic plan” where as a first step we address most of the SWRCB’s concerns about the “bad” constituents (selenium, salinity, etc.) by removing them from our water source, and then as a second step we design the wastewater treatment plant upgrade’s tertiary filtration to match the specific chemistry of the new inputs. Such a holistic approach, if presented with some sensitivity to the political issues the SWRCB will be concerned about, should be compelling and may result in the SWRCB setting the various threshold dates in a manner consistent with the plan.
As I said in my last e-mail to each of the Council members individually, [i]”if the Wastewater Project can be delayed, then the current stream of ‘capital set-aside’ dollars from the existing Sewer fees can be used to defray the capital costs of the surface water project in the early years. I’m currently trying to nail down with Paul Navasio what that annual contribution is, but it is my hearsay understanding that it is in the $8 million to $10 million per year range, and that there is already something like $20 million already accrued. If the cash requirements of the Wastewater project can be delayed until at least 2017, then the first $76 – $90 million ($20 million plus 7 years of $8 – $10 million) of the Surface Water project costs could be paid off from the existing Sewer fees. That would substantially reduce the amount of the ‘capital set-aside’ that would have to come from any increased Water fees. It is even possible that the whole $150 million for the Surface Water project could be paid off from the two combined “capital set-aside” stream before the capital costs for the Wastewater project need to begin . . .”[/i]
[quote]And please try to moderate the nasty and demeaning tone. [/quote]So, have you had an epiphany? You have violated that “principle” so many times with your colleges, and particularly with staff, at CC meetings, IMHO.
should have been “colleagues”
[quote]And please try to moderate the nasty and demeaning tone. [/quote]
??? I’m at a loss…
[quote]Elaine, in fairness to Sue, based on my personal experience, she has engaged/supported the idea of delaying the Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade ever since I originally presented that idea to her. Her stated problem with the idea was the same one that Staff had/has, specifically that the SWRCB has already given Davis a 16-year deferral, and as a result Davis is “the very last city of its size or higher that doesn’t have Tertiary Treatment (the principal reason for the base upgrade). She and Staff both believed that the SWRCB would dismiss out-of-hand any further deferral request. It is important to note that my recent conversations with numerous members of Staff indicate that they still think that is true. [/quote]
This is exactly what I said:
[quote]You are saying now that unnamed sources are indicating perhaps we can get variances on the wastewater treatment side. It was my understanding from things you have said previously, and things city staff have said, that we have no options but to go ahead with tertiary treatment.[/quote]
Now Sue is saying some “unnamed expert” is telling her we may be able to obtain a variance for the wastewater treatment side. If such experts do not come forward, this idea is not likely to go anywhere, nor will it seem very credible. It will be necessary to be able to get an expert to come forward and say we could have a reasonable chance to get such a variance. This will be the case bc it has been so emphatically stated in the past that we could not obtain such a variance.
I see nothing wrong with encouraging Sue to get those same experts that are telling her that there is a possibility to get a variance on the wastewater treatment side to come forward and say so publicly.
[quote]I applaud Sue’s willingness to rethink through this idea. I believe that if Davis presents to the SWRCB a “holistic plan” where as a first step we address most of the SWRCB’s concerns about the “bad” constituents (selenium, salinity, etc.) by removing them from our water source, and then as a second step we design the wastewater treatment plant upgrade’s tertiary filtration to match the specific chemistry of the new inputs.[/quote]
Which is exactly what I encouraged Sue to work on:
[quote]There is no question in my mind delaying the wastewater treatment plant would be the better option, IF there was any chance we could get a variance for as long as it would take us to build the surface water project… but I would want more than rank speculation or vague maybes… so I would encourage you to keep working on this angle as far more viable than getting variances for the surface water project…[/quote]
The bottom line IMO is we need more than vague “maybes” to overcome voter resistance to increasing the water rates. Something much more solid…
Oh good grief, pardon the pun! (Something much more solid…)
You don’t need Sue to come forward with anything, Bob Clarke of the city told me that if the voters vote down this referendum, the city could get a variance.
It isn’t Bob Clarke’s call, any more than it is Ken Landau’s call.
The voters of Dixon rescinded their rate increases. It didn’t stop the fines or lift the cease-and-desist order.
[quote]It isn’t Bob Clarke’s call, any more than it is Ken Landau’s call.
The voters of Dixon rescinded their rate increases. It didn’t stop the fines or lift the cease-and-desist order.[/quote]
Thanks for the sobering history of “voting down rate increases” and its attendant results…
[quote]You don’t need Sue to come forward with anything, Bob Clarke of the city told me that if the voters vote down this referendum, the city could get a variance.[/quote]
If Sue is standing by her claim that we can get a variance on the wastewater treatment side, then she needs to urge the people she has been speaking with to step forward and say so in public. Otherwise such a claim has little credibility and merely becomes a remote possibility…
I can’t say this strongly enough or loud enough. We don’t need a bunch of adhoc approaches to the SWRCB members or SWRCB Staff. That could easily lead to a hardening of their position(s). We need to come up with a holistic plan that lays out the compelling arguments why the plan as laid out is the best one for California.