It sounds good, the simple notion of pitting students and water against each other. After all, in the ideal world we should just decide every project, every expenditure, every law on its own individual merits.
She adds, “Healthy, vibrant communities rely on an array of local services – education, safety, health and public works – that address the needs of the whole community. Let us debate each on their merits.”
And then she concludes, “The quality of life in Davis tomorrow and for future generations depends upon the decisions we make today. Let’s proceed thoughtfully.”
But proceeding thoughtfully means we have to be truthful with ourselves.
The notion that water rate hikes may impact the schools is not new and it is not simply a campaign tactic that arose in the last month.
Back in March, the Vanguard had a commentary that argued that water rate hikes threaten to imperil the parcel tax.
The Vanguard wrote, “However, I am increasingly concerned that the City of Davis may be the school district’s worst enemy in this. People are complaining about the magnitude of a $200 parcel tax increase, which would put the annual parcel tax up to about $520. However, that increase is an ANNUAL increase.”
“The City of Davis is now looking to increase water rates on a monthly basis from around $35 to around $111 over a five-year period. That is a MONTHLY rate. That means, annually, the increase moves from a little over $400 per year to $1333. That’s a near tripling of the rate. And that will not even include sewer, which itself will increase over that time,” The Vanguard added.
Indeed, when the vote came down in May and the margin for parcel tax passage was razor-thin, this emerged more urgently.
The district was actually rather fortunate on that vote, as the Vanguard remarked: “Right now, no one seems to know that these tremendous rate hikes are coming. That ought to be step number one. Then, if the public is not willing to fight, there is not much we can do. If the public is willing to fight, then perhaps council will be compelled to find ways to lower the rates before it is too late.”
Within three months, the public became well aware of the rate hikes and suddenly water became a dominating factor in city politics and the Vanguard discussions.
However, none of this is particularly new. In August of 2008, the Vanguard wrote, “I have been critical of the city’s overindulgence of certain public employee salaries and the risk of raising more taxes to pay for their fiscal irresponsibility. Moreover, the amount of money people will pay in water rate hikes will dwarf the meager $120 annual tax increase [then in the form of Measure W].”
The Vanguard added, “We are talking about up to $200 per month for water rate hikes compared with $120 per year for the parcel tax. This is on top of other fees, taxes, and possible rate hikes. There is really no comparison. Moreover, if I am going to pay out more money, I would choose to give money to help children be educated and help teachers earn a better living. Those are my priorities.”
I post this so there is no mistake, the argument I have made now is the argument I made three years ago.
The fact of the matter is that there is but one pot of money. In August 2008, the economy was still a month away from teetering on the edge of catastrophe. And yet, the issues then are the issues now.
This is nothing new. At some point, the issue was going to come to a head and the voters were eventually going to have to choose between paying more for schools or more for city services such as water and sewer.
Ms. Lovenburg, to whom I apologize for making her a convenient foil in this piece, may want to believe that both water and education are important to this community, and in fact they are, but unfortunately we may not have the resources to fund both, particularly at this time.
In six months, the voters will be asked to renew Measures Q and W. At some point, the voters are going to say I am paying too much, my job is not secure, I have taken pay cuts and furloughs and benefit cuts, I cannot afford to pay any more for other people’s kids to be educated.
I cannot understand a public official who is, in many ways, oblivious to this point.
Ms. Lovenburg is being naïve in believing that somehow the voters will not factor water rate increases into their willingness to pay parcel taxes.
It is not as though the current parcel tax has a lot of margin for error. The last one, admittedly an increase rather than this renewal, narrowly passed.
The board can take solace that this represents status quo spending, but might take pause in the fact that almost a full third of the voters thought back in May that the current level would be too much for them to pay, and that is to say nothing about the missteps by the district in passing the measure.
Back in May, two things were different. First, most believed that the economy was slowly but certainly turning around. That is no longer the case. And second, people were not having their water rates doubled and most were not even aware it was on the horizon.
Will this lead to doom for the parcel tax? I am not sure. The people of Davis have proven time and time again that they support education locally.
But, given the water rate hikes and the continued sluggishness of the economy with no end in sight, and the close call for the last election, the district better not take things for granted.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, this was a timely, well-reasoned, and apt commentary.
[quote]David, this was a timely, well-reasoned, and apt commentary.[/quote]
IMO, not really a good argument at all. If the delay in the surface water project causes it to become a good deal more expensive in the long run because of increased costs due to any or all of the following – construction/finances; paying for the extra costs of maintaining a crumbling infrastructure; not making the projected savings on the wastewater treatment side; subsidence/contamination problems that cause us to have to drill a number of extra deep wells; steep fines from the state for noncompliance because the state does not buy our claim of “economic infeasibility” – then all we have done is “kick the can down the road” for other school parcel taxes that may not pass because now the water rate increases will have to be even higher than had we done this project sooner rather than later.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS KICK IN IN THE YEAR 2017, AND FINES WILL BE MANDATORY, NOT DISCRETIONARY. IF THE STATE DOES WHAT IT SAYS IT IS GOING TO DO, FINE COMMUNITIES SO THAT THEY WILL NOT FINANCIALLY GAIN FROM NON-COMPLIANCE, THEN OUR CITY WILL BE FINED AS IF WE HAD TO PAY FOR THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT BUT WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT – AND THE SCHOOLS WILL BE IN A WORSE PREDICAMENT HAD WE DONE THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE – NOW.
Also, the school parcel tax has begun to come under fire because of various school controversies: the way in which the school parcel tax was advertised (remember Rancho Yolo-gate?); the schools have forever held their hands out for projects like the school stadium (money raised by volunteers could have gone towards the parcel tax measures); while the DTA at times hasn’t seemed reasonable in its demands, i.e. it has no problem letting young teachers get fired so it can save current salaries/benefits of tenured teachers without regard to merit. In other words no sense of “shared sacrifice” in a down economy…
“which the school parcel tax was advertised (remember Rancho Yolo-gate?); the schools have forever held their hands out for projects like the school stadium (money raised by volunteers could have gone towards the parcel tax measures)”
It’s questionable that (A) they could have raised enough money for alternative purposes and (B) that that money could have on an ongoing basis been able to substitute for a parcel tax
“while the DTA at times hasn’t seemed reasonable in its demands, i.e. it has no problem letting young teachers get fired so it can save current salaries/benefits of tenured teachers without regard to merit”
That’s perhaps true although it is difficult to argue that we are talking about enough money to make a huge difference here. But moreover even if it were true, should we punish students for the errors of adults?
“In other words no sense of “shared sacrifice” in a down economy… “
That may be but who gets punished – not the people failing to sacrifice but rather the most vulnerable, the kids.
Unfortunately, what many are failing to realize is the 400 pound elephant in the room, which is – we are in this mess because of the 1972 clean water act, and maybe in the future, we need to think twice before making utopian promises of super clean air and super clean water, because those come with a hefty price tag as we are now finding out.
We can’t do anything about the 1972 clean water act even if you believe it is the problem
I contaced the entire Poard. Two members responded, both suggesting that it’s not the Board’s issue. Three did not respond at all.
We are very close to the number of signatures needed to qualify the referendum, so if we cross the line, the Board gets a bye since the referndum will stay the water rate hikes until June, unless the CC repeals the hike, or calls a special election.
I expect more leadership from the Board on these kinds of things. If the Board had passed a resolution asking the City to go with Dan Wolk’s motion to stay the biggest hikes for a year, the CC majority would have been compelled to do the right thing and stay the hikes.
If the Board expects to pass the parcel tax renewals, they had better up their game, a lot, and for God’s sake, dont hire the same bozos who ran the last campaign and nearly lost due to serious process errors.
The thing is, David, is that it doesn’t really matter which we would “choose” to do. If the water rates triple we can’t refuse to pay for it by saying we’d rather support the schools. It’s not an “either/or” situation and I’m betting few of us have a money tree growing in the back yard. If people are forced to pay a huge amount for one thing, then something has to give.
Elaine: [i]”kick the can down the road”[/i]
This is what most of us supporting the surface water project are trying to prevent. Sure it will financially hurt. If there is a clear path that assures less financial pain now and in the future, I am all for it. However, I haven’t seen a plan B yet that provides anything close to that assurance.
This water project debate is interesting to me because it reminds me of all the complex corporate programs I managed throughout my career where I had to maneuver and negotiate through copious technical criteria and multiple committed stakeholders owning different opinions and viewpoints to get to a final decision/plan. One reason I am not as supportive of voter referendums and populist-style politicking for technically complex policy decision is my program management work experience: I would never have succeeded without having an appropriate level of decision authority, or having been railroaded by self-serving, activist stakeholders.
The best-practices for corporate project management developed over time to optimize outcomes by balancing top-down decision-making and bottom-up decision involvement. At the Federal level I think we have too much of the former; at the state and local level, I think we have too much of the latter.
Also, I see the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) at work here:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/mbti.jpg[/img]
With the exception of those taking a position for political reasons, I would venture a guess that most of us on the same side of this debate have similar MBTI scores. For example, I am ENTJ. One characteristic is a dominant judging/thinking, and less dominant sensing/feeling tendency. Engineers tend to have a high occurrence of TJ.
In my view, the essence and value for the concept of diversity and acceptance has nothing to do with race or other superficial labels, but is embodied in this MBTI framework. We all have a different mix of dominant behavior traits that shape our views and opinions. In the modern corporate culture we celebrate this diversity and leverage the power of it using best-practice decision-making and planning processes. The public sector is behind on this and is also constrained by an increasingly dysfunctional political process where debate never seems to end.
My main point here is to suggest that we all be considerate understanding the differences we all carry, but also focus on the need for a final decision that cannot completely satisfy everyone. I see CCM-Sue and others advocating for the percent of the population that cannot easily afford higher water rates. My dominant TJ view can calculate that concern as a soft cost/risk, but I am prone to focus on the hard-dollar cost-benefit… especially the long-term/future impacts to my kids.
We are going to end up with a Plan-A, Plan-B or Plan-X. After the debate, I plan to be supportive of the decision made and make the best of it… realizing that my view is one of many diverse perspectives and I cannot always get my way.
JayTee: It’s not clear that is true. When I talked to Bob Clarke, interim PWD for Davis, he said that a voter referendum would be among the few things that could gain us at least a temporary variance.
The campaign kick off for the School parcel tax renewals is coming up on Nov. 16. Here’s the donation form: http://www.yesforourstudents.org/lit/donate.pdf/view I expect to see Mike Harrington appear as a big donator to the campaign, even though he thinks the people handling the campaign are “bozos.”
Ryan, is the same campaign organization/consultant doing this one, too? I heard that the last one that almost lost had professional consultants? I dont know, and I dont really care. But I will tell you for sure that if they pull those stunts again, they will kill it. I knew many, many people who almost did not vote YES just because of the obvious violations of good public process and the use of public funds to advocate for a tax increase. I personally think the School Board web site’s promotion of the tax increase, and the mailings, and the endorsement letter from the Superintendent, did cross the line, but I mostly kept quiet about it.
JayTee said . . .
“The thing is, David, is that it doesn’t really matter which we would “choose” to do. If the water rates triple we can’t refuse to pay for it by saying we’d rather support the schools. It’s not an “either/or” situation and I’m betting few of us have a money tree growing in the back yard. If people are forced to pay a huge amount for one thing, then something has to give.”
Point well taken JayTee, but your point only goes just so far. Many (dare I say most) of the residents of Davis currently spend money each month on bottled water and/or water softener chemicals. If the surface water project goes forward, both those personal budget line items will be able to go down to $0.00. Each such resident would have the option of pocketing those savings, or reinvesting them in the schools. It will be a personal choice.
What we’ve heard is that a lot, maybe a majority, of those signing the petition are seniors. Seniors get an exemption on the parcel tax. I doubt they see the two issues as entwined. They’ll vote on the parcel taxes as they’ve always voted. Only the changed water fees impact them.
I’ve heard some real horse [edit] from proponents of this water rate referendum. The school district should worry more about asking for too much, because the only relevant argument used so far is that combined total of all the fees and taxes is really going to pinch. This is a bad time for anyone to have their hand out to the tax and fee paying voter.
[quote]However, I haven’t seen a plan B yet that provides anything close to that assurance.[/quote]The Plan B that I have been suggesting involves the new salinity variance program which has been put into place anticipating a potentially new approach to salinity management in the Central Valley.
Plan B would be to work hard, from today forward, to acquire a salinity variance that is good for up to ten years, after which new salinity management approaches will be in place.
Plan B might or might not succeed, but there is nothing to lose in pursuing it whole-heartedly in parallel with planning the project.
If Plan B works, i.e., if we succeed in obtaining a salinity variance, the risks that people are concerned with will evaporate because salinity is our major problematic constituent. If Plan B works, we will not have to dig many more wells than are already planned (if any—we are already planning two more under the current plan), since we won’t need that much more deep aquifer water to meet future selenium limits (currently we are in compliance). I should remind you that new wells only cost $3 million as a one-time expenditure, whereas the surface water project will cost us $10 million a year.
The advantage of postponing the surface water project for about twenty years is that we would be able to retire our debt on our wastewater treatment plant and the first phases of the surface water project before on new debt for the completing the project. This would keep rates lower and spread out payments over a longer period of time.
Phasing in major needed capital improvement projects and retiring debt for one major project before issuing debt for a second is a time-honored way to keep costs under control.
In fact, when I was first running for council, a school board member at the time told me that the school board had consciously planned to retire the Emerson Jr. High School debt before issuing the current facility bonds.
All of the reports and analyses that people have been quoting to prove that we need to complete the entire project within the current timeline were done under the assumption that we had no options regarding the salinity requirements.
Things have changed. Now we have potential options that weren’t available when past reports were written, and that changes the analysis.
I recognize that that for people who can afford it, a greater mix of surface water with our well water would be a welcome change. But we have to keep in mind that half of Davis households make less than $60,000 a year, and that 40% of our students are on Pell grants.
Our new wastewater treatment plant is expected to cost around $100 million. The surface water project is currently guesstimated to cost $155 million, our east area water tank (really part of the surface water project) costs $8 million, and the Conaway water purchase costs $37 million.
That adds up to $300 million in new water-related expenditures. And it certainly could go higher.
$300 million is an enormous amount water-related of debt for a city of 65,000 – by any standard.
If we undertake it all at one time, I am afraid that far-reaching consequences are unavoidable.
I have to admit Sue, this is the best explanation of your idea yet.
However, it is not a prudent plan. For the expediency of saving this generation of rate payers money, your plan puts unnecessary pressure on an unsustainable resource, that being our deep aquifer. That unnecessary pressure is associated with enormous risks, because, if under your plan of sustained intense use, we degrade the quality of its water or send it into overdraft, those impacts will be permanent and irreversible. Future generation will require this deep aquifer in conjunction with surface water, particularly during drought.
Furthermore, you plan of delay is completely reliant on first obtaining a variance, and secondly a hope that future salinity limits will be generous enough that they can be met with use of the deep aquifer. And in the end, we just go to the Sacramento River anyway, provided we still have our water rights. You can’t guarantee that we’ll still have them.
Sue, I beg of you, for my children’s future, stop with promoting this plan. It is a bad plan. It is not a plan supported by any of the experts that have stuck their neck out, putting their name behind their recommendations and opinion.
I beg of you Sue, look to other ways to save the current generation money. Look to hook-up impact fees. Be creative, but please do not stand in the way of this necessary project.
Sue, where in your Plan B do you address the non-saline contaminants of our well water, such as selenium, boron, etc.
Sue – Good job on explaining plan B. I like the parallel project idea. I had not read that from you before, so my apologies of I missed it.
However, we need to include these additional cost-risks for plan B:
•Loss of surface water right from non-use
•Bay area political maneuvering leading to a peripheral canal or other increased rights to Sacramento water and a state political decision forcing Davis to rely on Deep water wells and more expensive reverse osmosis purification
•Drought and overdraft risks
•Increased environmental regulations
•Construction costs exceeding inflation
•A greater percentage of lower income and fixed income people to fund the project
•Mike Harrington sill around to block yet another attempt
•Increased voter resistance to paying higher fees
•The risk of other currently unknown city expenses
•Greater budget problems for the city
•Increased federal taxes
•Increased energy costs
•Increased healthcare costs
•A war (trade or otherwise) with China
•Another recession at the time we NEED to make the change
•Missed economic development opportunities resulting from poor water quality
•Prolonged pollution to the Delta
•Negative PR from wealthy Davis delaying an environmentally-correct project that less wealthy Woodland proceeds with
I would complete this list for each plan, assign a probability combined with a risk mitigation plan and a fiscal impact expectation where appropriate, and then make a business decision based on a comparison.
Mike: “is the same campaign organization/consultant doing this one, too? I heard that the last one that almost lost had professional consultants? I dont know, and I dont really care. But I will tell you for sure that if they pull those stunts again, they will kill it. I knew many, many people who almost did not vote YES just because of the obvious violations of good public process and the use of public funds to advocate for a tax increase. I personally think the School Board web site’s promotion of the tax increase, and the mailings, and the endorsement letter from the Superintendent, did cross the line, but I mostly kept quiet about it.”
If you don’t care, then…why bring it up? Why bring it up now? It passed and the allegations of impropriety were negligible and it didn’t matter in the end. I voted NO, because I felt that I was already paying enough. Not because the Superintendent of the Davis Schools mailed a letter to seniors telling them that their status would be exempt from paying.
You still haven’t told us who is bankrolling the signature gathering. C’mon, walk the talk, Mike.
Matt
Here’s your answer on selenium:
[quote]If Plan B works, we will not have to dig many more wells than are already planned (if any—we are already planning two more under the current plan), since we won’t need that much more deep aquifer water to meet future selenium limits (currently we are in compliance). [/quote]
As to boron and etc, I expect the answer is the same.
Sue’s plan is exceedingly risky. It is stupid to take such risks.
To which Matt responded to a similar post of mine in the Ethical Considerations article:
[quote]Davis Enophile, I would respond to Sue that her solution only works if the City retires all its selenium-rich intermediate and shallow aquifer wells. That would mean that 16 of the current 21 wells would be retired, necessitating 1) significant capital to replace the production of those 16 wells, 2) significantly increased risk that selenium from the intermediate aquifer will contaminate the deep acquifer because of all the holes punched into the roof of the deep acquifer, and 3) significantly increased overdrafting risk for the deep acquifer.
[/quote]
Great points Matt. I agree.
[b]Jeff Boone[/b]: Jeff: I agree with you that risk/benefit analysis is always the name of the game, whether we are postponing the fourth fire station, refraining from adding more police officers to the beat, etc.
We are weighting the risks/benefits of proceeding with the project now vs. the postponing the project for (about) 20 years until the wastewater treatment plant and first phase of the water project are paid off (assuming approval by the WRCB).
I start by suggesting that the surface water permit worry is not a valid risk factor, because the state has has not rescinded 40 year permits in 20 years and because we would be working with them, not in defiance of them.
As Graham Fogg said, the groundwater is currently replenishing and it would probably take decades to centuries to see a degradation in ground water quality. Remember, if the ground water supply is that fragile, then it will not be around for future generations anyway.
If we ran into unexpected problems with rapid degradation, everything is in place and ready to go for rapid completion of the project.
As to possible stricter regulations — that could happen with surface water as well. The postponement that I am suggesting is not for that long in the larger scheme of things and we are working with the WRCB, not against them. As to some of your other points, yes, it is risk/benefit analysis.
Let’s also throw in some other possibilities:
The possibility that:
[b]*[/b] many low income people and water-depended businesses such as restaurants will be forced out of Davis
[b]*[/b] the city will not be able to pass needed supplementary taxes
[b]*[/b] construction costs will increase less than inflation
[b]*[/b] that we will be in a prolonged economic stagnation like Japan, and construction costs will decline further
[b]*[/b] that the current unfavorable interest rate spread between munis and market rate bonds will narrow
[b]*[/b] that after years of stagnation, that federal or state grants will become available to stimulate the economy
[b]*[/b] that the snowpack will disappear and that term 91 will increasingly limit the amount of water we are allowed to take under our permit, and we have to put our resources into capturing the rain, i.e., groundwater recharge, etc.
[b]*[/b] that new contaminants will be found in river water and that we will have to built a different riverwater treatment facility as we have with our wastewater plant
[b]*[/b] the fact that the state has not necessarily assumed that salinity needed to be controlled by local municipal effluent levels. Flushing out with reservoir released is the main tool for controlling salinity in the Delta.
[b]*[/b] the possibility that global warming and sea level rise floods the Delta with salt anyway
[b]*[/b] war with the People’s Republic of Colorado
I would also like to point out that, had waited a few years and postponed the building of our current wastewater treatment plant, it would not be obsolete today and we would not have to be paying for a second one.
Correction, I am just typing this stuff out too fast:
I would also like to point out that, had we waited a few years and postponed the building of our current wastewater treatment plant, it would not be obsolete today and we would not have to be paying for a second one.
Well played Sue.
Plan B continues pumping from an aquifer that is presently being overdrafted. It continues to cause subsidence and harm to existing wells. Or it pumps more from the deep aquifer, possibly contaminating that one.
Sue: [i]As Graham Fogg said, the groundwater is currently replenishing[/i]
His exact words: “The groundwater levels appear to be recovering more or less fully every year following the dry season, indicating it is not yet in overdraft with respect to water quantity.”
Here Sue is referring to the deep aquifer, increased use of which is a cornerstone of her Plan B, leading to what Dr. Fogg calls ” the unknown effects of increased pumping by the City in the so-called deep aquifer, from which UCD already withdraws drinking water.”
Sue is counting on an aquifer system that is poorly understood. Clearly it is not replenishing from the surface.
Sue: “If Plan B works, we will not have to dig many more wells than are already planned”
Not with respect to selenium. Nearly all the shallow wells would have to be replaced.
Sue: “The advantage of postponing the surface water project for about twenty years”
The disadvantage is that we pay for new wells, harm and continue to overdraft the intermediate aquifers, possibly harm and possibly overdraft the deep aquifer, and pay for the surface water project anyway after twenty years.
Sue: “That adds up to $300 million in new water-related expenditures. And it certainly could go higher.”
Plus the cost of all the new wells. Remember, folks, Plan B involves postponing, not canceling, the surface water project. It is more expensive in the long run. It passes the cost of the surface water project on to Davis citizens 20 to 25 years from now.
It is an inappropriate use of ground water supplies, and merely postpones the inevitable. It all assumes we can get a series of variances from the SWR board. And not another public official who has looked at this, nor any single expert who has reviewed it, has agreed with Sue publicly.
I am re-posting this from another thread. I don’t know how Plan B addresses this.
Also, it is worth noting that Woodland and Dixon already face fines.
—–
Deep wells won’t solve the selenium problem.
Davis ground water selenium content, current wells: 6.4 ppb
UC Davis water selenium content, deep wells: 2.8 ppb
“EPA will propose new water quality criteria for selenium
U.S. EPA, on September 1, 2011, announced that they will propose new site-specific water-quality criteria for selenium that will protect fish and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. The new criteria will be based on results of scientific studies by the U.S. Geological Survey .
C-WIN’s analysis of the reports shows that the science provides the basis for a change in the water-quality standard for selenium from 5 ppb to less than 1 ppb, and for some species and hydrologic conditions, less than 0.1 ppb, which is 50 times less than the current 5 ppb. . This change is needed to protect economic resources of the Delta Estuary and Bay including salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and diving birds.
“These scientific documents raise questions about the wisdom of letting the Grassland drainers continue to use the San Joaquin River as a de-facto drain and whether the existing Central Valley water quality selenium standard of 2 ppb for wildlife refuges is adequate,” stated Tom Stokely, a water policy analyst with C-WIN.”
C-WIN is a clean water advocacy group.
Again:
[b]Now I would appreciate it if anybody would post a link or quote from any expert in the field:
who believes that the deep aquifer is a sustainable or preferable alternative,
who endorses delaying or canceling the surface water project,
who believes we are likely to be able to succeed in arguing for a higher salinity discharge limit.[/b]
The deep aquifer carried substantial risks that cannot be undone. Once you harm an aquifer, you can’t fix it.
The variance will not change the limits. It might set up a timetable for compliance. The surface water project is an integral part of that compliance schedule. You are simply delaying it, and spending money on other things that wouldn’t be necessary if the surface water is brought in.
From a report at ycfcwcd.org:
“6. Subsidence
Land subsidence, due to groundwater extraction, is documented along the east side of Yolo County from Davis to an area east of Zamora. [b]Subsidence between Zamora and Knights Landing is reportedly to be nearly five feet and in the vicinity of Davis and Woodland, two to three feet. [/b]There are two extensometers installed in Yolo County. One extensometer is located east of Zamora and the other is east of Woodland near the west levee of the Yolo Bypass. The latter was installed as part of the monitoring program negotiated as a condition of water transfers during the DWR water bank.”
Between 1999 and 2002: “The most significant area of subsidence occurred near the cities of Davis and Zamora,
and in the north and western portion of the county. Subsidence in the vicinity of Davis was about five centimeters (two inches) and in the vicinity of Zamora about seven centimeters (almost three inches).”
Subsidence causes significant problems with well operations, loss of aquifer, and reduces our ability to implement conjunctive use.
[b]Don Shor:[/b]Don, I know you care passionately about this issue, but you are throwing in the kitchen sink here.
We have done fine with groundwater so far. The leading expert in the field said that the aquifer is not overdrawn, is replenishing adequately, and that although we should certainly pursue surface water, that any quality degradation would appear slowly in the course of decades or centuries.
We have room to discuss the timing of this project if the WRCB grants us a variance.
We could drum up this level of worry about anything — fire protection, police protection, emergency response time, etc.
Far more people will die because we don’t have ever faster emergency response time than will die if we postpone the surface project for 20 years.
Sue, great list.
There are items that give me pause for consideration. Especially the first bullet related to business.
Especially the “war with the People’s Republic of Colorado”!
What would the avearge rate increase be for a restaurant? Do they really use that much water? I would think a large yard of grass would use more water.
A remarkably cavalier dismissal of subsidence that is occurring at the rate described.
[i]We have done fine with groundwater so far. The leading expert in the field said that the aquifer is not overdrawn, is replenishing adequately[/i]
The aquifer that most of our wells draw from is overdrawn. You keep going in circles on this. If we only need a couple of deep wells, then we are continuing to overdraft and harm the aquifers we are using now. If we change over mostly to the deep wells, we need more than a couple of wells.
You are ok with the level of subsidence that has occurred, and that is occurring, and that will occur if your plan is implemented?
Ryan: “If you don’t care, then…why bring it up? Why bring it up now? It passed and the allegations of impropriety were negligible and it didn’t matter in the end. I voted NO, because I felt that I was already paying enough.”
Huh?? You brought up the new campaign; all I said was I hope the same bozo consultants who ran the last one are not doing this one, as I believe that the fairly gross legal and process errors darned near sunk Measure A. Go back and read Dunning’s columns from those days. Been in town a while? He was writing for the DE when I was an aircraft mechanic and inspector here at Davis Airport, and he is still writing. That column could nearly make or break any relatively close election.
Ryan, you still amaze me. Earlier, you were pushing me to support the renewal of the two taxes; then you turn around now and tell me you voted NO on a school tax?? Whatever your vote, if you choose to tell others, including the approximately 8000 per week of your friends and neighbors who read here, just be consistent or you will be called a hypocrite.
Jeff Boone: I believe that restaurants are very heavy users of water with the cleaning of dishes. However, it would be interesting to get more information on this.
Everyone, say what you will, but if the CC majority and the DJUSD leadership won’t go to the mat for the kids, to protect and promote with the boundaries of the law the best chance to renew those two parcel taxes in March, then I am going to do it with the referendum.
Also, if the CC majority plan to lift up to $250 million in town money out of the wallets of everyone here, they had better prove their case. There is no way they have, not to me, and not to those 4800 protesters during the Prop 218 legal notice period. And they sure as heck have not to the nearly 5000 registered local voters whose names are on those petitions we are about to turn in.
Do any of you remember Susie Boyd’s lone NO vote on the CC in 1999 to put the Measure J item on the March 2000 ballot? Remember that she was the only candidate out of the 8 of us who was NO on Measure J? She blew through all of us, and got about 9000 votes, many of them bullet votes. I cam in 3000 under her, and I was second, with Sue just votes behind me.
Well, Measure J was fairly small potatoes to the general public compared to what we see and hear out in the field now with the referendum. The anger, and fear, is widespread. The surface water plant has the real possibility of pushing people out of their homes, drying up the last little bit of discrescinary money, and forcing the lower income residents to move to cheaper jurisdictions, if possible for their jobs and schools and family.
Remember last summer at a hearing here when Woodland councilmember Dote pounded the table and declared if Davis opted out of the project, they were going it alone? I have heard that Woodland has had thousands of non-pay shutoffs of city utilities in recent years? Picuture those poor families sitting in those homes with no water or sewer?? Davis only had a few hundred, which is too many.
The situation in Woodland is much closer than any of you realize, unless you have been tabling the markets and knocking on doors.
Then we have the blockers, led by Steve Souza who has one of the largest and most glamorous party houses in Davis, all backed up to a golf course? Can he pay his water bill? Absolutely! Yet here he is, refusing to support Sue’s motion to put it on the ballot. Here he is, leading the blocking campaign that is actively intercepting potetial referendum signers before they get to our tables. Double bad news for direct Democracy.
So yes, CC majority, you did pit water versus the welfare of our kids and their schools. Susan L wants to keep them separate, but they are linked at the financial ankles, and the longer the Board is complacent about the CC’s madness, the more the Board is jointly to blame.
Michael: This water vs schools train wreck was set up by David and Sue and has been a long time in the making. That being said, we probably could have withstood the two Greenwalds carping from the sidelines. But when you turned it into a full-fledged rate payer revolt the parcel tax went from imperiled to DOA. So if you want to assign blame … look in the mirror.
[b]Voter2012[/b]: Please stop the bullying and intimidation tactics. People should not have to live in fear of being of accused of killing a school tax because they disagree with you on the best way to fund our needed water related infrastructure.
Voter2012: A good friend of mine, one of the most senior attorneys in Davis, lived here and raised his family from a nice Davis neighborhood, saw me and commented that the surface water rates have killed the school tax renewals. He did not realize the referendum will stay the water rate hikes. He is one of the most senior, experienced court litigators that I know. he is a master strategist on how to win. When he heard the referendum stays the competition for the school parcel tax money, he demanded I give him petitions to sign, and off he went to round up his street and friends. Voter2012, please explain what special political, law, or business experience you have that qualifies you to make these sweeping conclusions without any supporting facts or analysis?
The recycled accusations are getting tiresome, but sometimes you come up with some great zingers, such as how home and business owners owe a huge debt of gratitude for the CC and progressive political operators for passing Measure J 11 years ago. I jhave never seen that in print before, but you are so right. Sue was part of that team.
You guys should only write what you would put your real name on. Try it; it’s fun, and liberating. I’ve gotten into trouble a couple of times for saying too much, but I’ve mellowed out and just take it as it comes in.
A primer on subsidence: [url]http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html[/url]
Current rate of subsidence: a half-inch to an inch per year.
Multiply that by 20 – 25 more years. Or go to the deep aquifer. Take your pick.
Remember the 3 S’s: salinity, selenium, subsidence.
Don: thanks for the primer.
I cannot reconcile your comments with the direct confirmation I heard from senior city staff that the aquifers under the city are replenishing themselves, and subsidence was not the issue.
Anyway, when we get to the general campaign, let’s go over the data together and see what is there.
Looking forward to it.
OK, Don, you out-lasted me again! Good night.
[i] the direct confirmation I heard from senior city staff that the aquifers under the city are replenishing themselves, and subsidence was not the issue. [/i]
I have provided evidence of subsidence. Jim Frame leads the survey crews. The data is all online. What you heard from city staff is not true regarding the intermediate aquifers, so I doubt that is what they said.
Sue: You’re being hypocritical. Bullying and intimidation has been your political stock-in-trade for over a decade. Remember Ruth’s trip to the hospital (as just the most public of many examples)?
You’ve tried to link your water agenda to the school tax for years. And the message has been clear and consistent. If you don’t get your way on the water infrastructure plan, then the school and park taxes are at risk of failing. Well guess what? Thanks to Michael, your chickens are now coming home to roost.
And just so we’re clear, I’m NOT blaming “people.” Just you, David, Michael, and any individuals that are using this issue to try and get a candidate elected in 2012.
I do not doubt the sincerity or disrespect the actions or beliefs of most of the grassroots folks that are involved in the referendum effort.
[i]”So yes, CC majority, you did pit water versus the welfare of our kids and their schools. Susan L wants to keep them separate, but they are linked at the financial ankles, and the longer the Board is complacent about the CC’s madness, the more the Board is jointly to blame.”[/i]
Mike, I don’t think you realize how condescending it feels to hear you infer that us non-attorney, non-city council member folk are not intelligent enough to vote for each tax/project on its own merit. Have you considered that voters will understand they are being manipulated with some political tactic to hide future and inevitable water rate increases from them, and anger from that might cause “no” votes on the parcel tax renewal? There is another voice on this matter, and it is being heard loud and clear. Voters certainly don’t like tax and rate increases these days, but I think they dislike political infighting and manipulation even less.
This paid signature-gathering exercise might very well doom the water project AND the school parcel tax the way it is being handled. If you succeed killing the water project through a fear-based misinformation campaign, and the school parcel tax renewal also fails, you and your endorsed CC candidates might need one of those big-company PR consultants to help repair some reputations.
[b]Voter 2012[/b]Stop bullying.
[b]Jeff Boone[/b]
Mike Harrington does not speak for me, and I cannot speak for the people running the referendum. I have a well-documented concern for the cumulative and ever-mounting water/wastewater project costs dating back to about 2005, when we were first told that we needed a completely new wastewater treatment plant in addition the surface water project.
I have been studying the problem, raising the concerns, and taking the lead to save $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant. I have done this year in, year out, with no regard whatsoever as to how it might help or hurt me in elections. I have done it because I see it as one of the most important issues that will determine the future of the city.
Anyone who accuses me of getting involved in this for political purposes has no idea about the work I have done on this project since 2005.
[b]Don Shor[/b]
Regarding subsidence: According to the following study
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.G51C0851B
The average yearly subsidence measured at an actual Davis location was 5.7mm/year (under 1/4 inch a year) from 1997 until the time of the study.
Here is the link to the subsidence study that measure an actual Davis location:
[img]http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.G51C0851B [/img]
Oh well, you will just have to cut and paste it:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.G51C0851B
Subsidence is a legitimate concern, and I have made this clear over and over again at council meetings.
It doesn’t appear that the subsidence rate in Davis particularly bad. But I do favor proceeding with the project as soon as we can pay off all our most of the first half of the water/wastewater projects.
If you start reading about the geology of our region, you would probably come to the conclusion that we should never have built here at all. The likelihood of an earthquake is huge, with really serious subsidence and flooding.
Sue, that is ridiculous.
You are aware of the extensive subsidence monitoring program, headed by Jim Frame, which does extensive surveys of the region.
You are aware of the Yolo County Subsidence Network.
[url]http://www.yolowra.org/projects_subsidence.html[/url]
You know that it shows results that do not lead to the conclusion that “It doesn’t appear that the subsidence rate in Davis particularly bad.”
Yet you pick a study which you probably found by googling which somehow negates this extensive body of work, and then trivialize the concern with your absurd comment about “the geology of our region” and a totally irrelevant statement about an earthquake.
I consider that on this topic you are being intellectually dishonest, and I am disappointed. Subsidence is occurring much faster than you indicate. Your proposal to continue pumping from the intermediate aquifer will result in continued subsidence of many inches during the lifespan of your proposal.
“Voter 2012Stop bullying.”
Sue: You first.
[b]Between 1999 and 2002:[/b] “The most significant area of subsidence occurred near the cities of Davis and Zamora,
and in the north and western portion of the county. [b]Subsidence in the vicinity of Davis was about five centimeters (two inches) and in the vicinity of Zamora about seven centimeters (almost three inches).” [/b]
A couple of questions for Don and Sue based on Don’s post:
So, if the trend in amount of subsidence were to continue at a steady rate of 2 inches per 3 years in the Davis area over the time frame of 20 or so years proposed as the alternative by Sue, in theory we could anticipate an additional approximate 13-14 inches of subsidence.
I realize that this is highly speculative and may represent a worst case scenario, but can’t help but wonder..
1) What would you see as the practical outcomes of this degree of subsidence ?
2) What mitigating factors if any would you see as decreasing this impact ?
That is actually not a worst case scenario. It is the [i]likely outcome[/i] of Sue’s plan based on current rates of subsidence.
Subsidence causes damage to existing wells.
It increases local flooding.
Most important: subsidence reduces the ability of the aquifer to recharge, because subsidence is a process caused by soil compaction. You are reducing the natural ability of the aquifer to recharge.
Finally, subsidence can cause harm to natural habitats, affect stream flow, and cause other environmental harm. It is a serious issue.
The three problems with continuing to use our current ground water: salinity, selenium, and subsidence.
You can’t mitigate subsidence except by ceasing the overdraft. There are two ways to do that: go to the deep aquifer, or build the surface water project.
[quote]I should remind you that new wells only cost $3 million as a one-time expenditure, whereas the surface water project will cost us $10 million a year. [/quote]
The cost of those wells will have to be added onto the cost of the surface water project, making the surface water project ultimately MORE expensive.
[quote]We can’t do anything about the 1972 clean water act even if you believe it is the problem[/quote]
Sure you can… carry on a grass roots campaign to get it repealed/modified as too expensive in a stagnant economy. Secondly, you can make sure that any new environmental requirements are subject to a more rigorous cost/benefit analysis. Environmentalists need to take a good hard look at themselves, when they pass such draconian requirements. Ironically some of the very environmentalists who tout these sorts of draconian measures are now fighting the surface water project/spearheading the referendum – to allow Davis to pollute the Delta while other communities do the lawful thing. Ironic, no?
[quote]Plan B would be to work hard, from today forward, to acquire a salinity variance that is good for up to ten years, after which new salinity management approaches will be in place.
Plan B might or might not succeed, but there is nothing to lose in pursuing it whole-heartedly in parallel with planning the project. [/quote]
There is absolutely no expert willing to come out publicly and indicate the SWRCB is going to loosen salinity requirements, and loosen them to a sufficient degree so Davis doesn’t have to abide by the new water quality standards, but gets a pass for 25 to 30 years. Here you even admit the most we could hope for is a 10 year variance, and then assume that somehow the SWRCB will loosen the salinity requirements to such an extent Davis can just dawdle on compliance for another 15 to 20 years. Then you concede Plan B may or may not succeed – yet it will almost assuredly make the surface water project considerably more expensive. Not a single expert who will speak in public agrees with your tenuous position, not one.
[quote]If Plan B works, i.e., if we succeed in obtaining a salinity variance, the risks that people are concerned with will evaporate because salinity is our major problematic constituent. If Plan B works, we will not have to dig many more wells than are already planned (if any—we are already planning two more under the current plan), since we won’t need that much more deep aquifer water to meet future selenium limits (currently we are in compliance). I should remind you that new wells only cost $3 million as a one-time expenditure, whereas the surface water project will cost us $10 million a year. [/quote]
This is a very disingenuous statement IMO. It implies the surface water project will cost the same whether it is delayed or not (I should remind you that the new wells only cost $3 million as a one-time expenditure, WHEREAS THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT WILL COST US $10 MILLION A YEAR). This is just not true. If the surface water project is delayed, into the costs MUST BE ADDED THE COSTS OF ANY DEEP WELLS THAT HAD TO BE DUG; ANY FINES THAT HAD TO BE PAID; ANY INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS INCURRED OF AN ALREADY CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE, INCREASES COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION/FINANCES, AND ANY OTHER COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF DELAY, DELAY, DELAY.
[quote]All of the reports and analyses that people have been quoting to prove that we need to complete the entire project within the current timeline were done under the assumption that we had no options regarding the salinity requirements.
Things have changed. Now we have potential options that weren’t available when past reports were written, and that changes the analysis. [/quote]
Dr. Schroeder knew all about the salinity issue when he wrote his most recent op-ed piece in the Davis Enterprise. So this argument just won’t wash…
[quote]That adds up to $300 million in new water-related expenditures. And it certainly could go higher. [/quote]
The “cost overrun” argument? First of all, there will be a citizen advisory group to keep a check on this sort of thing. Secondly, how much in the way of cost overruns will this project incur if there are delays, delays, delays? You refuse to address that issue, and dismiss it as negligible. I respectfully disagree… and not expert is willing to publicly agree with your view…
[quote]We are weighting the risks/benefits of proceeding with the project now vs. the postponing the project for (about) 20 years until the wastewater treatment plant and first phase of the water project are paid off (assuming approval by the WRCB). [/quote]
Which is it? Delay 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years? You keep moving the target depending on the post… And now you are advocating delaying the surface water project be delayed until the wastewater treatment plant AND THE FIRST PHASE OF THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT ARE PAID OFF… Your position keeps changing from post to post as the arrow of criticisms of your arguments keep hitting home…
[quote]I start by suggesting that the surface water permit worry is not a valid risk factor, because the state has has not rescinded 40 year permits in 20 years and because we would be working with them, not in defiance of them. [/quote]
This argument is a gem! The SWRCB is going to suddenly make a special new variance program for salinity in favor of Davis – the center of the Universe, even tho Woodland will comply, but the SWRCB wouldn’t dare do something new like rescind existing water right permits slept on for 25 to 30 years, when water is becoming an ever more valuable commodity sought by every person/entity throughout the state? You cannot have it both ways…
[quote]As Graham Fogg said, the groundwater is currently replenishing and it would probably take decades to centuries to see a degradation in ground water quality. Remember, if the ground water supply is that fragile, then it will not be around for future generations anyway. [/quote]
The Fogg comment is taken out of context (Don Shor did an excellent job of refuting the above statement). Secondly, why should we hasten the demise of a fragile groundwater system? How responsible is that to do? How is that going to help the situation?
[quote]The possibility that:
* many low income people and water-depended businesses such as restaurants will be forced out of Davis
* the city will not be able to pass needed supplementary taxes
* construction costs will increase less than inflation
* that we will be in a prolonged economic stagnation like Japan, and construction costs will decline further
* that the current unfavorable interest rate spread between munis and market rate bonds will narrow
* that after years of stagnation, that federal or state grants will become available to stimulate the economy
* that the snowpack will disappear and that term 91 will increasingly limit the amount of water we are allowed to take under our permit, and we have to put our resources into capturing the rain, i.e., groundwater recharge, etc.
* that new contaminants will be found in river water and that we will have to built a different riverwater treatment facility as we have with our wastewater plant
* the fact that the state has not necessarily assumed that salinity needed to be controlled by local municipal effluent levels. Flushing out with reservoir released is the main tool for controlling salinity in the Delta.
* the possibility that global warming and sea level rise floods the Delta with salt anyway
* war with the People’s Republic of Colorado [/quote]
Let’s take your points one by one:
1) Pay me less now, or pay me more later.
2) Supplementary taxes will always be in competition with water rate increases, whether it is now, 10 years from now, 30 years from now. Only if we ultimately pay MORE for the surface water project, there will be that much less in citizens’ collective pockets to pay for school and parcel taxes.
3) Why would you predict construction costs will increase less than inflation? On what expert basis do you make this claim?
4) Ditto for bonds. On what expert basis do you make this claim? Interest rates on borrowing are at an all time low.
5) Suddenly state and federal grants are going to materialize, when in fact the feds are grappling with how to grapple with the nations huge debt load? Are talking about massive cuts to social programs?
6) Now you are a weather forecaster?
7) New contaminants will suddenly materialize in river water, but not in the groundwater? And to such an extent that just our city’s surface water project will have to be completely redone? In other words the state would not take into account that other cities may have done the same thing, and set up a new variance procedure to deal with it?
8) The state will now flush out the Delta from reservoirs so cities don’t have to come into compliance with the new water quality standards until they can afford it? And how does our city tell the state what it will or won’t do, just so our city can delay coming into compliance bc we don’t feel like paying for the new surface water project right now?
9) If the sea floods the Delta, an exceedingly remote possibility, we’ll all be underwater/dead… literally…
10) The reference to Colorado completely escapes me…
I’m more worried about Contra Costa County than Colorado.
And they might be more heavily armed !
Sue: [i]”Anyone who accuses me of getting involved in this for political purposes has no idea about the work I have done on this project since 2005.”[/i]
No, I am clear on your interests and motivations on this issue. I think you are trying to do what you think is best… primarily for the lower income residents. Others with a rooster in this fight appear to have political motivations… and with respect to the parcel tax fear tactic… I think that can easily backfire in today’s political climate.
In terms of political leadership… demagogues, critics and blockers are a dime a dozen. Conversely, forward-looking visionaries, change-champions, problem-solvers and progress-minded risk-takers are in short supply. I see you as strong problem-solver, but maybe not so much a forward-looking visionary and progressive risk-taker. That’s fine with me, since we need problem-solvers too.
Off the wall observation: This has obviously become a very hot topic. I am amazed at the number and intensity of the postings! First post was 6:50 am yesterday, with the last post at 11:30 pm. Sue continued starting 1:18 this morning, followed by Don at 6:42am. Last post at 9:46 this morning. Call it 7 am to 10 am the following day! Twenty-six hours, virtually non-stop. We all know that we have to have the river water; the only question is whether we pay for more well water construction and then do the river project or skip the cost the the well projects and go straight to the river project. There have to be other dogs in this fight other than this question. I suspect that someone has a brother-in-law in the well drilling business and someone else has one in the surface-water piping business.
Don,
Nice to see some numbers for recent subsidence rates.
Another detrimental effect of subsidence is increased energy needed to pump water: basically subsidence packs together the aquifer grains (reduces pore space) and reduces subsurface storage and permeability; thus when wells are pumping the cones of depression are deeper (at same pump rate) meaning more energy to pump a given volume of water (for a given pump rate).
Given the rate of subsidence you cited (about an inch per year); it would be good to get some professional groundwater scientist expert opinion on how much that subsidence is likely to continue under several water supply options (including surface water supplement and deep well supplement); and how serious the detrimental effects of such subsidence are likely to be. As I understand it; after some time of pumping (maybe several decades or more, depending on withdrawal rate) the deeper aquifer is likely to start getting depleted, and we may get additional subsidence due to deep aquifer pumping alone.
It would be nice to get some groundwater experts (from UCD or other disinterested 3rd parties) to investigate this and get back to Davis voters with some expert opinion before the June vote.
Results of this study might tip the balance for this particular voter.
[b]Jimt[/b]
Here is something that I dug up with a quick search:
[url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/chapt2.html[/url]
According to this 1991 study, only 3.9 percent of all water used in the County goes to municipal and industrial uses. The remaining 96.1 percent is used for irrigated agriculture.
This same study says that the percentage of agricultural water that is groundwater is difficult to estimate, because there aren’t good records (at least as of 1991), but makes the assumption that it is somewhere between 37% and 48%. [url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/appendixa.html[/url]
Even though these are rough figures from twenty years ago, it appears that agricultural groundwater use swamps municipal groundwater use.
I haven’t found out how much of the agricultural irrigation around the Davis area comes from groundwater yet, but after this quick web search, I would guess that municipal water use is not the major contributor to local subsidence.
I’ll try to get more accurate figures if possible.
That is an important resource that I’ve posted several times before. Look at the specific water use by region within Yolo County, and the sub-basin that comprises the are where Davis and Woodland pump:
[url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/chapt3a.html#table4[/url], Lower Cache-Putah.